Stuff

10 Reasons To Have An Abortion – Illustrated By Adorable Cats

By  | 

Screen Shot 2013-10-29 at 11.34.38 AMI’m pro-choice. I’ve made my stance on this issue very clear numerous times on Mommyish, and I may not share the same beliefs with my employees or employers, but I am pro-choice. I believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare, and I don’t think the majority of women make the decision to have an abortion lightly. Yesterday our writer Maria Guido reported on the (awesome) news that a federal judge declared today new abortion restrictions passed by the Texas Legislature are unconstitutional. Maria linked this story on our Facebook page – which we do with many of our articles, and a reader made this comment: Screen Shot 2013-10-29 at 8.27.50 AM Mommyish is a parenting website. We support all parents,including those who become parents by accident, and we also support people who don’t want to become parents. I have children who I love beyond words and I am pro-choice. I don’t think these two things are mutually exclusive. My mother was pro-choice and had children. I know many women do. You can love kids, you can think babies are amazing, and you can also be in favor of a woman deciding what is best for her life and her body.

Due to the fact we have all seen one million sad stories on the Internet illustrated by miserable looking stock photo women sobbing into their hands, I have decided to use cats instead. I’m a cat fan, and I would rather look at cats than whatever comes up when you search photo websites for “abortion.”

I’m very pro-choice, and I can think of 10 reasons to have an abortion.

Having A Baby Would Endanger Your Life  shutterstock_157160969 (Image: DavidTB/shutterstock) Or cause you medical hardship.

Your Birth Control Failed  shutterstock_140663611 (Image: : Cherry-Merry/shutterstock) For whatever reason, your birth control failed. It happens.

You Don’t Want To Have A Child Because Of Your Career  tumblr_m81zn2ccFV1qguhnvo1_500 (Image: Tumblr) You feel like having a baby, taking maternity leave, and caring for a child would harm your career opportunities.

You Feel You Are Too Young  shutterstock_136846994 (Image: Leonid and Anna Dedukh/shutterstock) Maybe you’re a teen with an unplanned pregnancy, or maybe you are any age with an unplanned pregnancy, and you feel you are too young.

You Feel You Are Too Old  shutterstock_116715037 (Image:  Dziewul/shutterstock) Maybe your kids have all grown up and left home and you feel you are too old to have a baby. Maybe you feel like your diaper changing days are done.  

You Feel Strongly About Overpopulation  6a00e5538ab55c88330133f33390f9970b-500wi (Image: Tumblr) And you don’t want to add another human to the world.

You Are Worried About The Health Of The Baby  shutterstock_143928580 (Image:  AdStock RF /shutterstock) Either because of impending miscarriage, Trisomy 13 or Potter’s Syndrome, birth defects or diseases passed down in a family.  

You Want No Relationship With The Person Who Got You Pregnant  shutterstock_146531684 (Image: Petr Malyshev/shutterstock)

This can be anything from cases of rape and incest, to having a partner with drug or alcohol issues, to domestic violence in a relationship to getting pregnant with someone during a one-night stand.

You Don’t Want To Have A Child  shutterstock_118113208 (Image: Beauty photographer/shutterstock)

For whatever reason.

This list is by no means inclusive, and I could have probably easily come up with a hundred or so more reasons why someone should have an abortion.I don’t think abortions are something that women decide to do on the spur of the moment or because they haven’t carefully considered all their options, and I support adoption IF that is what a woman decides she wants to do. Before some of you readers rage at me, I more than welcome your thoughts, debates and opinions. And I hope we have a counter-list published in the future.

(Image: B.Stefanov/shutterstock)

2,944 Comments

  1. Emily Wight

    October 29, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    Nothing has made me more vehemently pro-choice than being pregnant and birthing a nine-pound baby. You just can’t force that on someone who’s unwilling.

    • allisonjayne

      October 29, 2013 at 1:53 pm

      Me too. I got pregnant very much by choice (IVF!) and had a relatively easy pregnancy…that made me even more pro-choice than I was before, because seriously no one should have to do that to their body if they don’t want to.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 6, 2013 at 5:46 pm

      …and f— the child’s life involved. Sad that having your very own child could make you feel that way about children in general.

    • allisonjayne

      November 7, 2013 at 9:09 am

      Please explain.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 7, 2013 at 6:34 pm

      “…because seriously no one should have to do that to their body if they don’t want to.”

      Never mind the child in question’s body, screw them, they get to die if Mommy Dearest doesn’t feel like completing the process that her own body initiated to create her child in the first place.

      It’s sad that you can look at your own child after birthing them, and think, “Man, having you was a real pain in the ass. I’m sure glad it would’ve been legal for me to have you killed back then, had I wanted to do so!”.

    • allisonjayne

      November 8, 2013 at 9:27 am

      Aw you’re an asshole. Good luck with that I guess.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 8, 2013 at 12:24 pm

      So your entire argument has devolved into, “You’re a meanie! *footstomp*”. Sorry for making you have to give a critical look at the implications of the position you espouse with regard to your child and other children in general. I’m a real doody-head.

    • allisonjayne

      November 8, 2013 at 12:27 pm

      You haven’t made me do anything. I stand by everything I have said. I have no need to take a critical look at anything. I don’t get into internet arguments with assholes; I have a zillion better things to do with my time.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 8, 2013 at 12:30 pm

      “I have no need to take a critical look at anything.”

      You obviously have a need, you just refuse to do so. I hear life is way easier with blinders on. I wish I could just espouse random ideals with zero thought or consideration and never worry my pretty little head about anything, too. You’re so lucky to be able to do that.

    • sylvie

      November 10, 2013 at 12:53 pm

      Faye, your ignorance is beyond words. Here are some words by Alice Miller for your to reflect on, but of course I have no doubt will not have an effect on you, because I can see very clear that you are a programed robot going around spreading lies. “To force the role of a mother on a woman who does not wish to be mother is an offense not just against her, but against the whole human community, because the child she brings into the world is likely to take criminal revenge for its birth, as do the many (mis)leaders threatening our lives. All wars we ever had were the deeds of once unwanted, heinously mistreated children. It is the right to lived life that we must protect wherever and whenever it is threatened. And it should never be sacrificed to an abstract idea.

      Not everyone is capable of thinking in real, concrete terms. Many seek refuge in religious beliefs. In their weakness, they place their trust in “relics,” awaiting salvation at the hands of one stronger than themselves. Anyone who claims to be a strong and knowledgeable authority for such people, and to be acting on their behalf, has the duty to be conscious of the appropriate facts. If they aren’t, if they ignore or neglect that duty, clamming instead that their palpable lack of information and their abstract conceptions of “life” are sanctioned by God and practiced in the name of humanity, they are acting against life, by misusing the weakness and trust of the faithful and dangerously confusing them. The injunction against abortion goes even further: Consciously or unconsciously, it represents support for cruelty against children and active complicity in the creation of unwanted existences, existences that can easily become a liability for the community at large.

      When I see the passion with which Catholic priests – men childless by choice – fight against abortion, I can’t help asking what it is that motivates them. Is it a desire to prove that unlived life, as perhaps their own destinies suggest, is more important and more valuable than lived life? Was that, perhaps, how the parents of those passionately committed to stopping abortion thought, though they expressed it in different ways? Or is it a case of seeing to it that others share the same fate as oneself? Both are possible. Both are dangerous, when people are driven to blind and destructive actions by the dead hand of their own repression.

      It is, in fact, not surprising to find that those who are both victims and apologist for the use of violence and severity against children are often those who most passionately proclaim their love of the unborn child, i.e., the kernel of life. Abortion can, indeed, be seen as the most powerful symbol of the psychic annihilation and mutilation practiced since time immemorial on children. But to combat this evil merely at the symbolic level deflects us from the reality we should not evade for a moment longer: the reality of the abused and humiliated child, which, as a result of its disavowed and unresolved injuries, will insidiously become, either openly or aided by hypocrisy, a danger to society.

      It is above all the children already born that have a right to life – a right to coexistence with adults in a world in which, with or without the help of the church, violence against children has been unequivocally outlawed. Until such legislation exists, talk of “the right to life” remains not only a mockery of humanity but a contribution to its destruction. ”
      From the book: “Breaking Down the Wall of Silence: The Liberating Experience of Facing Painful Truth” By Alice Miller

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 6:55 pm

      You make claims you cannot even back up with actual evidence… and then you say Faye’s ignorance is beyond words?
      I’ve already answered this same post of yours though…

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 7:59 am

      Yeah. And then calls me a “robot” after they copy/paste the same entry twice.

      And then go off on religion at me…I’M AN ATHEIST!

      It’s obvious so many people have not given this issue an ounce of critical thought, but started with the conclusion that a mother should have a “right” to kill her child as long as that child is young enough, and then worked backwards from there.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 11, 2013 at 8:28 am

      Pro aborts need religion
      It’s essential to their “argument”

    • JP cline

      November 11, 2013 at 4:10 am

      Just taking one meaning out of your list of Bullshit , the terminology of Force , whereas : “To force the role of a mother on a woman who does not wish to be mother is an offense not just against her, but against the whole human community…etc.
      I have only one premise for that , WHo ever forced the Woman in question to lay herself down, spread her legs and have unprotected sex just because it feels good to do it ?

      And don’t you even give me that jive talk about some Women being forceibly raped in this case , I know the statistics all to well and it doesn’t add up to the fact that when a Woman willingly impunes her own morals , is to lazy to take on protection and allows herself to take an occasion of unprotected Sex , she should also willingly take responsibility for the outcome of that trist …and you my dear are the friggin Robot here ..all metal , no feelings , no compassionfor life , no empathy for humanity at all …just sympathy for your own demons and apathy at the result of your own ill advised behavior …take that to the bank !

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 24, 2013 at 8:39 pm

      So you oppose abortion based on this premise ‘women who have non-procreative sex are sluts’

      Stay classy.

    • Plum Dumpling

      February 27, 2014 at 6:51 pm

      No thank you.
      I will have lots of HOT SEX.
      I will use birth control.
      If I become pregnant, I will give birth or abort as I see fit.
      Not as YOU see fit.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 6:03 pm

      As far as catholic priests go, their motivation seems to be “for every priest, a child’s behind.”

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 9, 2013 at 9:40 am

      We already know the respect you have for the unborn. But could you try a little harder with those of us who have to read your vulgarities? Thanks.

    • Plum Dumpling

      February 27, 2014 at 7:10 pm

      What is an “unborn?” Is that like The Undead?

    • JP cline

      November 11, 2013 at 4:05 am

      Good for you ! , Now utilize that time and go fly a Kite instead of getting into arguments which you can’t win ..and this way you won’t have to resort to using any more endocrine colloquia in reference to others who pose you a threat in that nutshell you call your brain ….

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:11 pm

      Your argument was bitchy from the beginning. Not a lot of other ways to respond to that.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 9:39 am

      How about with facts? My argument was bitchy-fine, be a bitch right back to me, I won’t mind. However, do so WITH FACTS, instead of just, “You’re a meanie-poo-poo-head!” and buggering off. At least TRY to give the issue a little thought past bumper-sticker slogans and your own sense of discomfort.

    • Kate B

      November 14, 2013 at 4:15 pm

      Well, your argument has hardly been ruthlessly logical and rational.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 14, 2013 at 9:36 pm

      How so?

    • Guest

      November 11, 2013 at 3:58 am

      ever hear of a hysterectomy ? it’s a 2 day stay in a hospital which means you won’t have to worry about making a choice ever again …you won’t have to doubt yourself the next time you get horny and need some relief , you won’t have to see an abortionist and certainly you won’t be procreating empty self serving people such as yourself ..try it , you might like it ..it relives a Woman of all the pain and responsibility of being a Woman , Wife and Mother …

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 8:47 am

      I happen to have a tubal ligation, myself. And, I don’t see anything wrong with that, or with a woman choosing to have a hysterectomy. I don’t think that makes her any less of a woman/wife/mother (especially if she already has children…).

      I agree with your sentiment that more reliable methods of birth control should be used more often, however, I disagree with your animus expressed towards females. It takes two to tango.

    • Tapetum

      November 23, 2013 at 11:31 pm

      That would be difficult since I’m already married with children. I think I’m going to be a Woman, Wife and Mother (good grief, what Pretentious Capitals) regardless of what I do from here out.

      Good luck finding any ob/gyn who will perform any sort of sterilization on you if you’re under the age of 40, and/or not already a mother a few times over. They’re rarer than hen’s teeth.

    • Melooley

      March 15, 2014 at 11:27 pm

      So, a hysterectomy means you are “relieved” from being a woman? Wow, women (oh, wait–not women… men? genderless entities??) who’ve survived ovarian, cervical, and other cancers that can be treated via hysterectomy will be so thrilled to know that their sexual identity was lost via their life-saving surgeries.

    • Kate B

      November 14, 2013 at 4:13 pm

      Actually, if I were to accidentally get pregnant now and have an abortion, I would very much be thinking of the child.
      I have serious mental health difficulties, am living on welfare with a partner who is much older than me and has cirrhosis of the liver. We love our two boys to pieces but we really struggle to look after them and provide them with everything that they need, and I know that, without question, we would be unable to provide another child with the quality of life they deserve. Having another child would also lessen our ability to look after our remaining children.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 14, 2013 at 9:34 pm

      “Actually, if I were to accidentally get pregnant now and have an abortion, I would very much be thinking of the child.”

      O rly? In what Bizzaro-World is killing someone instead of giving them the chance to live and overcome their humble beginnings doing them a favor?

      “I have serious mental health difficulties…”

      Obviously.

      “…am living on welfare…”

      So? I’ve been on assistance before. That’s not an excuse to kill your child.

      “I have serious mental health difficulties, am living on welfare with a partner who is much older than me and has cirrhosis of the liver. We love our two boys to pieces…”

      Funny you should choose those words…”to pieces”…how bad does your or your partner’s health have to get before it becomes acceptable to you to love those boys LITERALLY “to pieces” to save them the trouble of growing up “neglected” or impoverished?

      “… and I know that, without question, we would be unable to provide another child with the quality of life they deserve.”

      So let someone with more resources give them the life they deserve. It would definitely speak so much more to how much you love them than…umm…fucking killing them dead.

      “Having another child would also lessen our ability to look after our remaining children.”

      Well hell, you might really be on to something here! Since you have two boys, have you thought about shooting one of them in the face? Because that would REALLY free up a ton of resources for your “remaining child[ren]”!

    • Kate B

      November 15, 2013 at 4:18 am

      What a disgusting analogy. Comparing shooting my son in the face with an abortion is despicable. You’ve actually just provided me with an excellent example of how irrational your argument is Your argument is not, in any way, rational or logical. It is emotive and hysterical.
      I would only abort a pre-12 week pregnancy. A pre-12 week fetus is not a baby. It’s not even close. I’ve had an actual baby die you know – I found him grey in his moses basket when he was 5 years old. It absolutely blows.my.mind that anybody could think that a blob of uterus cells at 8 weeks gestation is worthy of exactly the same protection as a living breathing baby; that an abortion or miscarriage is as much of a tragedy as a cot death. Absolutely ridiculous.
      You know, as well, that a very high percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage naturally. Nature is ruthless and imperfect. Many fertilized eggs don’t implant successfully in the womb. Do you honestly think this is a tragedy? That nature is massacring babies? Because if you honestly think that a zygote is a baby, it should really upset you that so many ‘babies’ are ‘dying’ all the time, even if it is from natural causes.

    • Ariela

      November 15, 2013 at 12:46 pm

      Kate B: When’s the last time you looked at a embryos/fetuses pre-12 weeks? Here’s some illustrations (not photos) by the Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112/NSECTIONGROUP=2

      From 8 weeks gestation (6 weeks after conception) they already have arms, legs, little hands & feet, head, eyes, a beating heart… how can you say these tiny formed humans are not even close to being a baby?? They are not just a blob of cells, they are quite defined at that age.

      I’m sorry to hear of your son’s death. Was your child that died 5 months old of 5 years old (you wrote “years”, but I know my 4yo wouldn’t fit in a moses basket so I thought you may have meant months). That is an awful tragedy, but no doubt it would feel like a big loss to you because you had met this child, held him, kissed him, saw his beautiful smile… but does that mean the death of a newborn days old is less tragic than the death of a 5 month old? Or a stillborn death is less tragic than a 2yos? Even if you were to say yes, does one being more tragic than the other, mean that one is not tragic at all? If the parents of a 3yo child didn’t care if they died, would that child’s death still be a tragedy or not??

      As for comparing miscarriages to abortions… the difference really comes down to motive and the mother’s role in the death of the child. One child is dying from from natural causes out of the mother’s control, the other is dying from being intentional killed by mother.

      I am believer in a “sky-daddy” so I think that all babies that die in the womb (whether miscarried or aborted) are brought to be with him in paradise, so that is the good that comes from the bad.

      For me, the real tragedy is what abortion does to the mothers… it turns mothers against their children, turns them into their killers. And they are unwittingly led into it because it seems so straight forward, an easy way to end the “crisis” with no real repercussions… but the stories I’ve read of post-abortive women’s regret… how they wished they didn’t kill their child… how they would never encourage a friend to abort because of what they experienced… how they either can’t have children now, or how their later “wanted” pregnancies made them realize what they truly lost… how they hated themselves for so long until they learned how to forgive themselves… I just want to prevent women from feeling that, because you can’t take back killing someone. Once you’ve ended their life, that’s it. But birth offers so much more hope – If you adopt them out, at least there is a chance of reuniting one day… if you raise your child, you will likely realise the gift and value of your child… but if you kill your child, its only hurt or denial that you will experience.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 15, 2013 at 6:29 pm

      “What a disgusting analogy. Comparing shooting my son in the face with an abortion is despicable.”

      Why? Abortion would have accomplished the same thing, only having occurred when he was younger.

      “You’ve actually just provided me with an excellent example of how irrational your argument is Your argument is not, in any way, rational or logical. It is emotive and hysterical.”

      Yes, your indignation is well-noted, but you have to provide the reason WHY in order for your objection to carry any weight beyond just illustrating how uncomfortable you are with the logical extension of your own position.

      “I would only abort a pre-12 week pregnancy.”

      Great. At one point in time, your son was contained in such a “pre-12 week pregnancy”. Still not following how anything I’ve said is inappropriate.

      “A pre-12 week fetus is not a baby. It’s not even close.”

      I never said that fetus=baby. However, they ARE both just stages of development in the life cycle of a child.

      “‘I’ve had an actual baby die you know – I found him grey in his moses basket when he was 5 years old.”

      And yet, that same child could have been killed by an abortion 5 years and 6 months before that point, and you’d be okay with such a turn of events. I’m sorry…who is being irrational and hysterical here?

      ” It absolutely blows.my.mind that anybody could think that a blob of uterus cells at 8 weeks gestation is worthy of exactly the same protection as a living breathing baby…”

      Oh, it’s you! Because anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of how human sexual reproduction works can comprehend that the cells which constitute a new human organism in utero are cells which belong to THAT ORGANISM, and are cells of THEIR BODY, and in no way are uterine tissue cells with the genetic code of only the pregnant mother.

      “…that an abortion or miscarriage is as much of a tragedy as a cot death. Absolutely ridiculous.”

      My younger brother died in utero at 6 months gestation. My family wept for him, as he deserved, and just as we would have had we found him dead in his crib at 6 months post-birth. You know why? Because he would have always and still have been the same organism he was when he died at 6 months post-conception as he would have been at 6 months post-birth, and your arbitrary standards for what constitutes the death of a human child worth mourning are just that-arbitrary.

      “You know, as well, that a very high percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage naturally. Nature is ruthless and imperfect. Many fertilized eggs don’t implant successfully in the womb ”

      Yes. But that doesn’t mean that human beings have to be. Natural death and the fact that natural death happens isn’t an excuse for wanton, knowing, and active killing. The fact that I might die on my own of a heart attack tomorrow doesn’t somehow grant legitimacy to the actions of someone who might desire to shoot me in the face today.

      “Do you honestly think this is a tragedy? That nature is massacring babies? Because if you honestly think that a zygote is a baby, it should really upset you that so many ‘babies’ are ‘dying’ all the time, even if it is from natural causes.”

      Yes. It’s sad when a human being is denied their one, single chance to experience life on this planet. I don’t believe in any rainbows and unicorn farts perfect afterlife, so yes, a human organism dying tragically before they have the same chance to live that I’ve been fortunate enough to experience on this Earth is saddening. It’s also saddening that you can look at the deaths of other human beings with such an apathetic eye.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 1:44 pm

      Wow, thank you for demeaning all women who have ever suffered a miscarriage. Congratulations, you’ve just proved how heartless you really are.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 2:10 pm

      You consider zygotes to be babies.

      So, what are YOU doing to stop the needless massacre of zygotes that fail to implant?

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 3:03 pm

      Science considers a human being to be a human being at its conception. What are you doing to help women in crisis pregnancies who choose to keep their children? That’s rhetorical question, I’m not focusing on what you are doing or not doing, I’m focusing on the issue. Abortion is wrong because it deprives someone of their right to life.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 3:52 pm

      Science considers a human being to be a human being at its conception.

      I proved you wrong on that earlier. There is no consensus. And besides, you are misusing the language and engaging in PROPAGANDA, a distortion and/or mis-use of the language. The word “being” has a number of definitions, one of which relates to “existence”. So, in that sense, because an unborn human exists, it would qualify as a “human being”. However, likewise so would a radish plant qualify as a “radish being”. But since that latter phrase is not normally used in casual conversations, it logically follows that in those conversations, which so frequently include the phrase “human being”, the word “being” refers to something other than “existence”. The
      actual relevant definition can be inferred from other phrases that are used from time to time: “intelligent being”, “extraterrestrial being”, “alien being”. The word “being” is simply a synonym for “person”.

      Since a radish plant is not a person, that is why the phrase “radish being” does not get used in ordinary conversations. The propaganda is now obvious; abortion opponents are claiming that an unborn human qualifies as a person, without offering any evidence other than the label “being”. Note that because ordinary animals are also nonpersons, we don’t use
      phrases like “rabbit being” in typical conversations, either. And, measurably animal-level are the minds that unborn humans do have! (How often do you encounter the phrase “fetus being”?) Meanwhile, True Artificial Intelligences, when they eventually begin to exist, will qualify as “machine beings”, even though their offspring, small “growing” electronic machines won’t qualify as persons until after many months of acquiring parts. Abortion opponents had better start getting used to the concept of “machine beings

      Abortion is wrong because it deprives someone of their right to life.

      You lose the right to life when you infringe on another persons’ bodily autonomy and health.

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 9:40 pm

      Science doesn’t have the authority to define ‘human being’ for anybody, as ‘human being’ is a value judgment and those are beyond the scope of science. What we can do is come up with a definition and let science tell us whether a particular thing fits the definition.

    • Phillies

      November 10, 2013 at 7:49 pm

      I’ll make this simple so that you ignorant, ghetto people can understand.

      If…you…dun wanna…go…thru…dat….’den….keep…yo’….legs…closed….you ho!

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 9:40 am

      ^Moby.

    • Elena Maria

      November 12, 2013 at 2:18 am

      First and foremost, you don’t realize your own point. When doing IVF, couples very much WANT to become parents, and they go to extremes to make it happen. It’s such a disgrace that there are so many people who have to expend tens of thousands of dollars to endure fertility treatments, when other women can get pregnant with no problem and have one or multiple abortions without blinking an eye. Makes.Me.Sick.

    • bgk

      October 29, 2013 at 2:34 pm

      Amen!!! My girl is glorious, but birthing her giant 9.5lb angel-butt was no walk in the park. Neither was carrying her (gestational diabetes, overnight stays in the hospital to monitor my blood pressure, extreme water weight gain, 4 months of solid nausea and 5 more months of random throwing up, feeling dizzy all the time, not being able to drive myself places after 7 months because my belly got too big, etc). I dunno how many times I told my husband “I cannot IMAGINE doing this if I didn’t want this baby. This SUCKS.” NO ONE should have to endure pregnancy if they do not WANT to endure it. Physically it’s ridic & the mental & emotional strain that comes with dealing with all the physical crap is BEYOND ridic. 😛

    • Peblz

      November 9, 2013 at 11:08 am

      Nobody should have to endure being murdered before having the chance to experience life. Don’t have sex unless you are ready for the following. This is selfish!

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:08 pm

      Murder is a legal term. Don’t use it unless you actually understand it.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 9:41 am

      Fine. We’ll use the term “homicide” in the future.

    • Lane

      November 13, 2013 at 2:33 pm

      Murder is killing with the intent of depriving someone of his/her life. Yeah, make sure YOU understand it.

    • Kate B

      November 14, 2013 at 4:18 pm

      An 8 week old fetus is not a person.

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 1:04 am

      Kate B…yeah right…the baby is a cow. Or a dog. Or….anything but a baby human. You sound like a slave holder….blacks were not considered persons either. And yet, we ALL know these children are persons. You do too. But you can deceive yourself if you don’t like reality. Go ahead.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:20 am

      A microscopic clump of tissue smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is not a person.

      However, a woman is.

      And seeing as how this clump of DNA attaches itself to the uterine wall, drills into the woman’s blood stream, steals sugar and other nutrients from her blood, calcium from her bones, and suppresess her immune system, I would go so far as to say that the woman is the one who is enslaved, not the zygote.

      Normal, frequent
      or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

      exhaustion (weariness
      common from first weeks)

      altered appetite
      and senses of taste and smell

      nausea and vomiting
      (50% of women, first trimester)

      heartburn and indigestion

      constipation

      weight gain

      dizziness and light-headedness

      bloating, swelling,
      fluid retention

      hemmorhoids

      abdominal cramps

      yeast infections

      congested, bloody
      nose

      acne and mild skin
      disorders

      skin discoloration
      (chloasma, face and abdomen)

      mild to severe backache
      and strain

      increased headaches

      difficulty sleeping,
      and discomfort while sleeping

      increased urination
      and incontinence

      bleeding gums

      pica

      breast pain and
      discharge

      swelling of joints,
      leg cramps, joint pain

      difficulty sitting,
      standing in later pregnancy

      inability to take
      regular medications

      shortness of breath

      higher blood pressure

      hair loss

      tendency to anemia

      curtailment of ability
      to participate in some sports and activities

      infection
      including from serious and potentially fatal disease

      (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with
      non-pregnant women, and
      are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

      extreme pain on
      delivery

      hormonal mood changes,
      including normal post-partum depression

      continued post-partum
      exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section
      — major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
      fully recover)

      Normal, expectable,
      or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

      stretch marks (worse
      in younger women)

      loose skin

      permanent weight
      gain or redistribution

      abdominal and vaginal
      muscle weakness

      pelvic floor disorder
      (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers
      and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal
      incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life — aka prolapsed utuerus,
      the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)

      changes to breasts

      varicose veins

      scarring from episiotomy
      or c-section

      other permanent
      aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed
      by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

      increased proclivity
      for hemmorhoids

      loss of dental and
      bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

      higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

      newer research indicates
      microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and
      mother (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

      Occasional complications
      and side effects:

      complications of episiotomy

      spousal/partner
      abuse

      hyperemesis gravidarum

      temporary and permanent
      injury to back

      severe
      scarring
      requiring later surgery
      (especially after additional pregnancies)

      dropped (prolapsed)
      uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
      pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
      and enterocele)

      pre-eclampsia
      (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated
      with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

      eclampsia (convulsions,
      coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

      gestational diabetes

      placenta previa

      anemia (which
      can be life-threatening)

      thrombocytopenic
      purpura

      severe cramping

      embolism
      (blood clots)

      medical disability
      requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
      many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
      or baby)

      diastasis recti,
      also torn abdominal muscles

      mitral valve stenosis
      (most common cardiac complication)

      serious infection
      and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

      hormonal imbalance

      ectopic pregnancy
      (risk of death)

      broken bones (ribcage,
      “tail bone”)

      hemorrhage
      and

      numerous other complications
      of delivery

      refractory gastroesophageal
      reflux disease

      aggravation of pre-pregnancy
      diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5%
      of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment
      prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

      severe post-partum
      depression and psychosis

      research now indicates
      a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments,
      including “egg harvesting” from infertile women and donors

      research also now
      indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity
      in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

      research also indicates
      a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary
      and cardiovascular disease

      Less common (but
      serious) complications:

      peripartum cardiomyopathy

      cardiopulmonary
      arrest

      magnesium toxicity

      severe hypoxemia/acidosis

      massive embolism

      increased intracranial
      pressure, brainstem infarction

      molar pregnancy,
      gestational trophoblastic disease
      (like a pregnancy-induced
      cancer)

      malignant arrhythmia

      circulatory collapse

      placental abruption

      obstetric fistula

      More
      permanent side effects:

      future infertility

      permanent disability

      death.

      The fetus hurts the woman, not the other way around. You are advocating that women be enslaved, and even killed and maimed, in service of the contents of their uterus. And that is slavery.

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 11:01 am

      You are a good example of what killing one’s kids does to you.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:28 pm

      The fetus hurts the woman, not the other way around. You are advocating
      that women be enslaved, and even killed and maimed, in service of the
      contents of their uterus. And that is slavery.

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 12:59 am

      Murder is illegal killing. Abortionists are hit men, legal hit men. The mothers hire them to kill their children….legally. You know, in America, where men are marrying men. All is well. (choke choke)

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:21 am

      Abortion is legal so no, it is not murder.

    • trollfinder

      November 19, 2013 at 5:06 pm

      troll

    • Kate B

      November 15, 2013 at 4:27 am

      What if a woman never wants a baby? Are you saying she should be celibate her entire life? Sounds fair.

    • Phillies

      November 10, 2013 at 7:45 pm

      Then you should keep your legs closed, you whore. Temporary Discomfort vs. Right to Life? :Hmmmm….

      Idiot.

      And no mother who supports abortion for such willy-nilly reasons is fit to be a mother. Any person who believes the lives of unborn children are that worthless cannot be trusted to care for their own children, for fear they may abuse or neglect out of the same belief.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 7:52 pm

      Whoa dude!… calm down
      There is no reason to resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling
      That makes us no better than the pro aborts

      Unless of course you’re just a pro abort trying to make pro-lifers look bad…

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:10 pm

      We aren’t pro-abortion. Abortion sucks. It’s not candy land and fun times.
      We are pro-choice. Because when you take that choice away, when a man can choose not to be a father but a woman can’t choose to not be a mother, that makes women a second class of citizens.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 11:25 pm

      “abortion sucks” was that supposed to be a pun?

      If you believe that abortion is an option then you are pro abortion…not so difficult to understand is it?

      What happens when the child’s life is taken away? What does it make the child?

      When you give a women the choice to kill her offspring but the man isn’t given that option, then you place the women above the man. I thought we were all equal…
      Why would you afford such special privilege to an expectant mother, but not the father?
      I guess might really does makes right with you people

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:28 pm

      I want safe legal abortion to be an option. Not the first option. But a choice.

      Do you think women just up and invented abortion in the last century? The only difference is legal abortion doesn’t kill the woman.

      All this talk about women keeping their legs closed…I guess men should do that too and then they wouldn’t have to worry about not being able to choose abortion or not later on.

      “you people”

      Ha.
      Okay, troll.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 11:31 pm

      Do you think any crime just up and invented itself in the last century?
      Are you trying to justify the talking of a child’s life based on how long it’s been happening?

      Before Roe (which was based on perjury) the number of women dying from abortions was already going down.
      Legal abortion doesn’t kill women? Really? Tell that to Tonya Reeves or Jennifer Morebelli or the 100’s of other women who have either died or been seriously maimed because of legal abortion.
      After Roe 50 million babies are now dead….so much for rare and the “last option”

      I’m not the one talking about women keeping their legs closed.
      I’m hypersexual and I’m bisexual. I love having sex any which way I can.
      But sexual freedom does not come at the cost of someone else’s life–especially the life of which the woman is 50% responsible for creating(rape exception aside).

      meh.. I’ve been called worse by you people 😉

    • Kate B

      November 14, 2013 at 4:21 pm

      A fetus that is undeveloped enough to be within the abortion limit is not a child. It’s not even a baby. It is entirely dependent on the mother’s body, it cannot feel pain, it cannot think, it has no consciousness. We have reliable scientific studies telling us that.
      The mother has the right to abort because the fetus is a part of HER body.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 14, 2013 at 9:18 pm

      An infant is also entirely dependent on the mother.
      Your argument is weak.

      If a person is born who does not have the capability to feel pain, does that mean we can put them to death too?

      It’s still debated whether or not cats or dogs have conscientiousness, ready to kill them off too?

      The mother has the right to abort because the fetus is a part of HER body.

      We have reliable scientific texts that will contradict this statement

      But since you brought it up… since when does a women have 2 beating hearts and extra set of fingers and toes?

    • tsara

      November 14, 2013 at 9:59 pm

      “An infant is also entirely dependent on the mother.”
      I thought there was this magical thing called ‘adoption’ that didn’t work for fetuses but did work for infants? And I was also not aware that infants suppress their mothers’ immune systems and use their kidneys to process their waste.

      “If a person is born who does not have the capability to feel pain, does that mean we can put them to death too?”
      If they’re incapable of consciousness, why not? Do you have an objection to harvesting organs from beating-heart cadavers?

      “It’s still debated whether or not cats or dogs have conscientiousness, ready to kill them off too?”
      Pigs are smarter. What are your thoughts on bacon? Many types of candy? Even many skincare products use pig parts.

      “But since you brought it up… since when does a women have 2 beating hearts and extra set of fingers and toes?”
      I dunno… there are quite a few weird medical things that go on. But what makes a z/e/f less part of the pregnant person than that person’s kidneys? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 14, 2013 at 10:09 pm

      Yes, there is a magical thing called adoption… try it sometime it’s quite rewarding. I wasn’t aware that infants suppress their mother’s immune system either. Good one.

      Infants don’t have conscientiousness though… so I’m sure you’ll find away to justify infanticide

      How many dead bodies (cadavers) still have beating hearts

      I hate bacon… ew. Can you prove inconclusively that they don’t work merrily on instinct?

      An individual’s body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother’s body, the unborn’s cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn’s body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother’s body.

      “As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.”
      –the late, the great, Hitch

    • tsara

      November 14, 2013 at 10:20 pm

      “I wasn’t aware that infants suppress their mother’s immune system either. Good one.”
      Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses do suppress the immune systems of the people who carry them, or they’d be rejected just like any other functional parasite.

      “Infants don’t have conscientiousness though… so I’m sure you’ll find away to justify infanticide”
      They have rudimentary consciousness. They may not be self-aware in the sense of being aware of their own awareness, but they are aware. And to me, the biggest moral distinction is that an infant can be passed around; there’s no need, in a civilized society, for anyone to feel that there options are to take care of an infant when they can’t (say, for financial or mental health reasons) or to either abandon it to starve or kill it outright. But if there’s nobody to look after it (keep in mind that we’re talking pretty extreme situations here, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party ), and it can’t look after itself, then I do think that it is more moral to give it a quick death than to abandon it for a protracted and painful one.

      “I hate bacon… ew.”
      But do you want to make it illegal?

      “How many dead bodies (cadavers) still have beating hearts”

      .___________.
      Quite a lot of the ones that die in hospitals. Vegetables? Braindead? Former people with only brain-stem activation and their bodies only kept alive by machines?

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 15, 2013 at 6:24 am

      Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses do suppress the immune systems of the people who carry them, or they’d be rejected just like any other functional parasite.Yes, I know.

      Although your comparison of us to a a parasite is inaccurate (parasites are a different species from the host) you just contradicted one of your own points. Thank you.

      When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman’s immune system within the uterus so that this tiny “foreign” body is not rejected by the woman’s body. Were this tiny embryo simply “part of the woman’s body,” there would be no need to locally disable the woman’s immunities.

      What if the child is born without any rudimentary awareness due to some malformation?

      Then what?

      But do you want to make it illegal?

      Leave it ti the pro abort to compare our offspring to bacon.

      Quite a lot of the ones that die in hospitals. Vegetables? Braindead? Former people with only brain-stem activation and their bodies only kept alive by machines?

      They are still living humans.

    • tsara

      November 15, 2013 at 2:00 pm

      “Although your comparison of us to a a parasite is inaccurate (parasites are a different species from the host) you just contradicted one of your own points. Thank you.”

      I said functional parasite, which is accurate. And that might be a good distinction between part of the person vs. not part of the person. (It doesn’t matter, though; if it’s part of me (like my kidney), I get to remove it without asking it. If it isn’t part of me and it’s inside me when I don’t want it to me, it’s an invader and I get to remove it (though I’d try asking, first).)

      “What if the child is born without any rudimentary awareness due to some malformation?”

      What, like anencephaly? Then it’s not a person and any value it has is externally imposed; it doesn’t have any of its own.

      “Leave it ti the pro abort to compare our offspring to bacon.”

      *shrugs* I’m more comfortable with abortion than I am with bacon, and not just because of my eating disorder. Pigs are unsettlingly intelligent (and so are dolphins and elephants and some octopi). And I don’t really care what other people think about abortion as long as they’re not trying to make it unavailable.

      “They are still living humans.”

      That’s pretty meaningless. They’re not people, and we don’t call it murder to harvest their organs without unplugging them first.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 16, 2013 at 8:10 am

      If you don’t want the child inside of it, (of course rape exception aside) then don’t put him or her there.
      Oh you’d ask the child’s permission would you? Would yo ask the same permission of a newborn?

      No, not like anencephaly, (however, for you to suggest that these even these babies are not people just takes all of us deeper into your troubled psyche.)
      I’d like for you to tell my cousin that her baby girl who lived less than a day and died in her arms that she wasn’t a real person.

      I was actually referring to people like this

      That you wold give more value to a pig (I do love their truffles) than a baby in utero is also a disturbing trait of the pro aborts. You sound eerily similar to Peter Singer.

      What a coincidence… I don’t care much how people feel about abortion either as long as they’re not trying to procure one.
      To date, I’ve helped to save at least 4 babies. 2 of whom we adopted and then helped send their mom’s back to school.
      We paid all the medical bills too.

      Sorry about your eating disorder. Self-esteem issue?

      No, it’s not meaningless. They are people. And yes, in certain circumstances we do call it murder if they are unplugged just to harvest their organs.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 16, 2013 at 10:15 am

      Would you permit abortion in the case of rape?

      And yes, in certain circumstances we do call it murder if they are unplugged just to harvest their organs.

      Not if clinically braindead, no.

      Brain death is the irreversible end of brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of brain oxygenation. It should not be confused with a persistent vegetative state. Patients classified as brain dead can have their organs surgically removed for organ donation. Even after brain death, the working of the heart might continue at a slow pace, but there will be no respiratory effort.Brain death, either of the whole brain or the brain stem, is used as a legal indicator of death in many jurisdictions.

      Pre-viabilty a fetus has the same EEG readings as a clinically braindead patient.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 16, 2013 at 10:19 am

      The only difference being that fetuses aren’t brain dead. They’re brain growing.

      *derp*

      Oh look what else we do for our mothers!

      http://io9.com/5861990/fetuses-can-donate-their-stem-cells-to-help-heal-their-mothers-hearts

      and just incase you missed it the first time:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women_shealth/3314614/The-unexpected-benefits-of-pregnancy.html

      “Dr. Feldman says that “during asphyxia of the mother, the fetus sends oxygen to the maternal blood.” The amounts of both nitrogen and phosphorus retained by the pregnant woman is greater than during her non-pregnant state. The same is true of iron and sulphur and perhaps of allelementsof the body. It is the rule that a woman’s nutrition is improved during pregnancy and it is not uncommon for her ailments to disappear during this period. Investigators claim to have demonstrated the existence of placental antibodies in the mother’s blood. Antibodies are supposed to increase the resistance to germs and toxins.”

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 16, 2013 at 10:33 am

      The only difference being that fetuses aren’t brain dead. They’re brain growing.

      Potentiality is not actuality.

      Just because something has the potential to be something else does not mean it is that future thing.

      An acorn is not an oak tree.

      The blueprints to your house are not your house.

      These are not carrots:

      http://www.scottsdaleskinrejuvenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/carrot-seed.jpg

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 16, 2013 at 10:49 am

      an infant isn’t a toddler, a toddler isn’t’ a teenager… a teenager isn’t a young adult.. but we are human… life is a continuum. Start with fertilization and implantation and ends in death.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 16, 2013 at 12:43 pm

      infant’s toddlers teenagers young adults and the elderly are all sentient, autonomous individuals

      they are not genetic blueprints that can be put in a petri dish

      it isn’t a baby if you can put it in a freezer

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 1:15 pm

      So, all those women who are murdered and then put in freezers aren’t women either because they can be put in a freezer? Give your head a shake. That’s a stupid argument.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 1:26 pm

      Women who are murdered and put into freezers cannot *survive* in the freezer, dumbfuck.

      An embryo, however, CAN survive in a freezer. A baby, however, cannot.

      Abortion by definition cannot be infanticide, if it was, you could remove the ‘baby’ at any stage and give it up for adoption.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 21, 2013 at 4:56 am

      Stop discriminating against us because of our size.
      Why does might make right with you people?

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 1:14 pm

      You’re talking about the egg and the sperm before they make an connection. We’re talking about a conceived child. Get it right.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 1:24 pm

      A zygote is not a child. It is a genetic blueprint equivalent to a seed.

      Children are born. Children are not masses of undifferentiated tissue. Children are autonomous, sentient beings.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 2:51 pm

      Dance with your words all you want. Science and logic prove you wrong. No matter how you redefine your words, you cannot disprove that a zygote is not human. It has life, not just the potential for it.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      I just did prove you wrong…with actual science and logic.

      Saying that science and logic prove me wrong without actually demonstrating *how* I am proved wrong just goes to show that you’re full of hot air.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 1:10 pm

      Actually, some patients who were thought to be brain dead have woke up and eventually were able to talk about how they heard everyone discussing which organs to donate and if they were going to pull the plug or not. Let’s bring this into the abortion debate. When you devalue life at the beginning, it is easy to devalue life at the end. Sometimes doctors will declare a person brain dead when there is a chance of recovery because they know that it will take a long time and a lot of resources for the person to be functional again. The person is actually alive, but the doctor decides that they won’t have a good quality of life so they should die and does not give them a chance to recover. It is the same with the pro-abortion movement. Women are so stuck on the fact that they will be inconvenienced for maybe all of two years while they have to breast feed, and change diapers and actually teach their child. My daughter is 3 and she can dress herself, go potty without assistance, clean-up her toys, talk in full sentences, and she no longer needs diapers. So, we’re talking a drop in the bucket compared to the woman’s life-time. But they won’t even give their child a chance because they are stuck on the “what-if’s”. And that is all the pro-choice side can claim are “what-ifs’s” because they don’t wait long enough to find out what the reality really is.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 1:23 pm

      Pregnancy is not a minor inconvenience.

      Pregnancy can maim and kill.

      It is not your place to decide which medical decisions a person should make simply because you value a potential life over an actual life.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 4:27 pm

      Actually, some patients who were thought to be brain dead have woke up and eventually were able to talk about how they heard everyone discussing which organs to donate and if they were going to pull the plug or not.

      citation needed

      The brain, however, appears to accumulate ischemic injury faster than any other organ. Without special treatment after circulation is restarted, full recovery of the brain after more than 3 minutes of clinical death at normal body temperature is rare. Usually brain damage or later brain death results after longer intervals of clinical death even if the heart is restarted and blood circulation is successfully restored. Brain injury is therefore the limiting factor for recovery from clinical death.

      ^ Safar P, P (1988). “Resuscitation from clinical death: pathophysiologic limits and therapeutic potentials”. Critical Care Medicine (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins) 16 (10): 923–41. doi:10.1097/00003246-198810000-00003. PMID 3048894.

      Safar P, P (1986). “Cerebral resuscitation after cardiac arrest: a review”. Circulation (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins) 74 (6 Pt 2): IV138–153. PMID 3536160.

      The person is actually alive, but the doctor decides that they won’t have a good quality of life so they should die and does not give them a chance to recover.

      Doctor’s don’t decide. Families do.

      My daughter is 3 and she can dress herself, go potty without assistance, clean-up her toys, talk in full sentences, and she no longer needs diapers. So, we’re talking a drop in the bucket compared to the woman’s life-time

      More like 18 years. And again you are dismissing all of the health and life risks of pregnancy, the cost of giving birth, the cost of time spent in the NICU (what if the baby is ill), the cost of pregnancy related illness (women have developed eclampsia while pregnant, lost their job, health insurance, and left the hospital homeless, sick, and with a baby). And 18 years with a child they will resent.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 10:05 pm

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 10:16 pm

      Your articles are confusing ‘brain death’ with ‘persistent vegetative state’.

      “Unlike brain death, permanent vegetative state (PVS) is recognized statute as death in very few legal systems. In the US and UK, courts have required petitions before termination of life support that demonstrate that any recovery of cognitive functions above a vegetative state is assessed as impossible by authoritative medical opinion”

      vs clinical brain death:

      “Brain death is the irreversible end of brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of brain oxygenation. It should not be confused with a persistent vegetative state. Patients classified as brain dead can have their organs surgically removed for organ donation. Even after brain death, the working of the heart might continue at a slow pace, but there will be no respiratory effort.”

      —-

      There is no denying that doctors can mistakes. However, this does not change the fact that a pre-viability fetus has the same EEG readings as a beating heart cadaver.

      The fetus lacks the capacity for sentience. There is always the chance that a patient in a coma and/or vegetative state will recover – these patients have the capacity, but they are currently injured. The pre-viability fetus lacks the capacity, period.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 10:12 pm

      And there are a lot of “what if’s” in that “18 years.” What I’m saying is, that after 2 years, my child has become quite independent. After 16 years, a kid can legally leave home, I had a few friends who moved out at 16. There is also adoption as an option. And no, I am not able to adopt right now, but there are many many other people waiting in line to.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 10:17 pm

      And no, I am not able to adopt right now, but there are many many other people waiting in line to.

      For healthy white newborns, no doubt. If there was such an insatiable demand for children, all of the disabled kids and older kids would be adopted. Instead they are languishing in foster homes.

      if there was such a demand, black babies wouldn’t sell for 20k less than white babies.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 10:18 pm

      If you are so quick to judge what everyone else “wants” to adopt, then please, show us all how to do it and adopt one of the disabled and black babies.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 10:20 pm

      I am simply pointing out that adoption isn’t the panacea that you seem to think it is.

      Not if you’re black. Not if you’re disabled. And not if you’re older than a newborn.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 21, 2013 at 1:30 am

      If you don’t want the child inside of it, (of course rape exception aside) then don’t put him or her there.

      I am not capable of self-fertilization. Since you know science so well, you should know this very basic fact.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 21, 2013 at 4:08 am

      When did I ever imply you were?
      Are you being willfully dim or are you just being a typical bitter angry pro abort?

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 5:26 pm

      You and your ilk continually wax on and on about having to take responsibility for “putting the baby there.” That clearly indicates that you believe that women self-fertilize. Do you even bother to think before you type the inanities you do?

    • PrincessJasmine4

      December 3, 2013 at 4:47 am

      No, that’s not what it indicates.
      You really like to take things out of context.
      Do you do it on purpose or do you just not understand?
      She’s 1/2 responsible for creating the dependence of the child most of the time.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 1:02 pm

      Many people are aware that the people getting their organs harvested are still alive. It has come to light recently that some have woken up from their comas moments before their organs were to be harvested, their families believing they were dead based on medical advice. But that is a completely different issue. We’re talking about the life of one group of people being more equal than anyone else. We’re talking about false “rights”. Women claim they have the “right” to their own bodies, and therefore, anything that inconvenience’s their body can be disposed of. This is a false fallacy. But we have argued successfully, and medical science has proven us right, that the child is not the woman’s body. If everyone chose abortion, we would have no more people and our populations would die out. But no one in the pro-choice cares about the future of our race or their responsibility to society. They only care about themselves as seen through their shallow, self-centered, often stupid rebuttals to any logic, reason, or irrefutable scientific fact.

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 9:34 pm

      “Women claim they have the “right” to their own bodies, and therefore, anything that inconvenience’s their body can be disposed of.”
      You’ve got your ‘therefore’ wrong. Anything that is in my body when I do not want it there can ethically be removed by me, at any time, for any reason. If I expel an embryo from my body, it is not my problem if it dies afterward or in the process — I still have the right to remove it. Abortion is a reasonably-proportioned action to end the immediate and ongoing nonconsensual use of my body.

      “If everyone chose abortion, we would have no more people and our populations would die out.”

      We’re hardly in danger of that. Many pro-choice people choose to have children.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 15, 2013 at 3:03 pm

      1) The zygote actually overpowers the woman’s immune system in the same way a parasite does. Isn’t that interesting!?

      Here are some scientific findings:

      Further investigation revealed that placental NKB contained
      the molecule phosphocholine, which is used by the parasitic nematode worm to avoid attack by the immune system of the host in which it lives.

      During implantation, fetally derived cells (trophoblast) invade the maternal endometrium and remodel the endometrial spiral arteries into low-resistance vessels that are unable to constrict. This invasion has three consequences. First, the fetus gains direct access to its mother’s arterial blood. Therefore, a mother cannot reduce the nutrient content
      of blood reaching the placenta without reducing the nutrient supply to her own tissues. Second, the volume of blood reaching the placenta
      becomes largely independent of control by the local maternal
      vasculature. Third, the placenta is able to release hormones and other substances directly into the maternal circulation. Placental hormones, including human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and human placental lactogen (hPL), are predicted to manipulate maternal physiology for fetal benefit.

      The host-parasite relationship during pregnancy is a fascinating interaction and research in this area will improve understanding of disease pathogenesis and the various consequences of the host immune response, being host-protective, parasite protective and contributing to
      disease pathology. Pregnancy poses an interesting problem for the immune system of the dam as she is essentially carrying a semi-allogeneic tissue graft (the foetus) without immunological
      rejection taking place.

      Another role for foetal transferrin receptors on trophoblasts could be to bind maternal transferrin at the materno-foetal interface, thus frustrating maternal immunosurveillance. This is similar to a mechahism used by schistosomes in the host-parasite relation where host proteins are bound by the parasite to escape immunological recognition.

      2) A new paper by Emera, Romero, and Wagner suggests an interesting new idea. They turn the question around: menstruation isn’t the phenomenon to be explained, decidualization, the production of a thickened endometrial lining, is the key process.

      All mammals prepare a specialized membrane for embryo implantation, the difference is that most mammals exhibit triggered decidualization, where the fertilized embryo itself instigates the thickening, while most primates have spontaneous decidualization (SD), which occurs even in the absence of a fertilized embryo. You can, for instance, induce menstruation in mice. By scratching the mouse endometrium, they will go through a pseudopregnancy
      and build up a thickened endometrial lining that will be shed when progesterone levels drop. So the reason mice don’t menstruate isn’t thatthey lack a mechanism for shedding the endometrial lining…it’s that they don’t build it up in the first place unless they’re actually going
      to use it.

      So the question is, why do humans have spontaneous decidualization?

      The answer that Emera suggests is entirely evolutionary, and involves maternal-fetal conflict. The mother and fetus have an adversarial relationship: mom’s best interest is to survive pregnancy to bearchildren again, and so her body tries to conserve resources for the long haul. The fetus, on the other hand, benefits from wresting as much
      from mom as it can, sometimes to the mother’s detriment. The fetus, for instance, manipulates the mother’s hormones to weaken the insulin response, so less sugar is taken up by mom’s cells, making more available for the fetus.

      Within the mammals, there is variation in how deeply the fetus sinks its placental teeth into the uterus. Some species are epithelochorial; the connection is entirely superficial. Others are endotheliochorial, in
      which the placenta pierces the uterine epithelium. And others, the most invasive, are hemochorial, and actually breach maternal blood vessels.
      Humans are hemochorial. All of the mammalian species that menstruate arealso hemochorial.

      That’s a hint. Menstruation is a consequence of self-defense. Femalesbuild up that thickened uterine lining to protect and insulate themselves from the greedy embryo and its selfish placenta. In species
      with especially invasive embryos, it’s too late to wait for the moment of implantation — instead, they build up the wall pre-emptively, before and in case of fertilization. Then, if fertilization doesn’t occur, the universal process of responding to declining progesterone levels by sloughing off the lining occurs.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7081298.stm

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8115596?dopt=Citation

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17958926

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37515

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3528014/

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 16, 2013 at 9:06 am

      You’re also good at plagiarizing

      It doesn’t matter

      By the time a woman finds out she is pregnant we are past the developmental phase of zygote, morula and blastocyst.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 16, 2013 at 1:05 pm

      You’re also good at plagiarizing

      You’re also good at reading comprehension. Not.

      Notice the links at the bottom of the post dumbfuck? Yeah, that’s where I got the information from. DERP!

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 21, 2013 at 5:40 am

      You don’t always post the links at the bottom of the page.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 1:18 pm

      So, you won’t bring God into this, but you’ll bring in antiquated arguments of evolution? Let’s stick with recent scientifically proven facts thank you very much.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 1:27 pm

      There’s nothing antiquated about it.

      I am sorry that you’re too fucking stupid to understand science when you are presented with it.

      And yeah, you clearly oppose abortion because of religion, which isn’t an argument.

      Idiot.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 3:11 pm

      You have nothing left to argue with you go to name calling. Genius! Evolution is a disproven THEORY recanted by Charles Darwin himself.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      Citation needed.

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 9:41 pm

      *snerk*

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 15, 2013 at 3:12 pm

      What if the child is born without any rudimentary awareness due to some malformation?

      If the child is born without a brain it is for all intents and purposes a beating heart cadaver.

      it will NEVER develop a personality. And personality is what makes you WHO YOU ARE.

      Without the mind, you are dead. This is what clinical brain death is. When the cerebral cortex dies, the mind is gone, and such patients are allowed to simply die.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 16, 2013 at 9:32 am

      There are people born without the ability to feel pain.. that’s what I was talking about..

      Also.. your attempt to dehumanize my cousin’s daughter will not work.
      She only lived a few minutes.. but she is and always will be her daughter.
      You’re not a very compassionate person… I’ve noticed that about most pro aborts.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm

      There are people born without the ability to feel pain.. that’s what I was talking about..

      They can still suffer. They can still think. They can still experience the world. They are autonomous individuals. And they can still value their own existence.

      A non-sentient non-sapient lump of undifferentiated tissue can do none of the above.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 21, 2013 at 5:17 am

      If an infant is born without the ability to feel pain, how can he/she suffer?
      When was the last time an infant valued their own existence?
      Do tell please.

      We can think, feel, taste, move around, dream and remember when we are in utero.

      We remain a “undifferentiated ” for all a few hours
      We cease to be just a clump of cells after about 4 days.
      By the time our moms find out they are carrying us, we have many human characteristics. Including a heart beat, well formed body parts and other organs.
      You lack education in embryology.

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 10:32 pm

      .______.
      If you can’t think of any suffering that doesn’t involve physical pain, you lack imagination. I’ve seen babies start crying when taunted with desirable toys or food.
      (In some post of mine, I said that one of the things I use to determine personhood is ability to suffer, and I made a point of distinguishing the ability to suffer from the ability to feel pain, and yet you responded with a link about someone whose nervous system wouldn’t send them pain messages.)
      I’ve also seen babies grab their feet and then look surprised. That looks like developing awareness of the self, to me.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 15, 2013 at 3:11 pm

      Don’t you just love how she is confusing ‘consciousness’ with ‘conscientiousness’

      lololol

      What an idiot.

    • tsara

      November 14, 2013 at 10:24 pm

      Oops, posted before I was finished.

      “Can you prove inconclusively that they don’t work merrily on instinct?”

      No, but they’re definitely smarter than fetuses.

      “An individual’s body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother’s body, the unborn’s cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn’s body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother’s body.”

      And I got a piece of my arm removed because it had a different genetic code from mine. And is Lydia Fairchild one person, or two? Why does DNA matter? If I beg for some lab time, get a friend’s DNA, and spend some time cutting and hybridizing, and then stick the results in a micro tube and carry them around with me always, should I be able to vote twice eighteen years from now?

      And boring quote is boring.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 15, 2013 at 6:38 am

      No, but they’re definitely smarter than fetuses.

      And your evidence for this is? Please cite your source.

      And I got a piece of my arm removed because it had a different genetic code from mine.

      Sorry, was that piece of your arm male or female? Did it have it’s own beating heart that had to be stopped before being removed? DId it have it’s own fingers and toes? Did it have a face yet? What part of out’s brain was developing at the time?

      And is Lydia Fairchild one person, or two?

      *eye roll*
      I guess that could be up for debate.
      Chimerism is a very interesting subject.
      I’d like to know how common or rare it is.

      Doesn’t make your “point” though.
      During our stage as a blastocyst, our mothers don’t even know we are there.

      Why does DNA matter?

      Your DNA is what makes you….you.

      If I beg for some lab time, get a friend’s DNA, and spend some time cutting and hybridizing, and then stick the results in a micro tube and carry them around with me always, should I be able to vote twice eighteen years from now?

      Maybe in my next sci-fi novel?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 15, 2013 at 3:10 pm

      Infants don’t have conscientiousness though… so I’m sure you’ll find away to justify infanticide

      “Conscientiousness is the trait that denotes being thorough, careful, or vigilant; it implies a desire to do a task well”

      Were you homeschooled? You’re a dumbfuck.

      And infants are in fact *conscious*. Infants can in fact SUFFER. And they are not infringing on anyone’s bodily autonomy. Infants do not kill their mothers. Fetuses however, do.

      An individual’s body parts all share the same genetic code

      Tell that to chimeric individuals such as Lydia Fairchild.

      Every cell of the unborn’s body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother’s body.

      My cells are genetically distinct from yours. Can I haz your kidney now to save my life?

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 16, 2013 at 9:28 am

      Sorry for the typo.
      Very sleepy last night.

      Were you homeschooled? You’re a dumbfuck.

      Again with the bigotry and using words that are too big for you… I thought we had this discussion…

      And infants are in fact *conscious*. Infants can in fact SUFFER. And they are not infringing on anyone’s bodily autonomy. Infants do not kill their mothers. Fetuses however, do.

      Fetuses can feel pain as well and they don’t always result in killing their mother.

      There are people who are born without the ability to feel pain. How will you dehumanize them?
      http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1386322

      Tell that to chimeric individuals such as Lydia Fairchild.

      I’d actually like to do more research in that area and find out how common human chimerism is…

      We studied this in our first year of embryology… fascinating isn’t it?

      My cells are genetically distinct from yours. Can I haz your kidney now to save my life?

      If you need it, and I’m a match, and despite your assholery, yes, absolutely! I’m a donor.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 16, 2013 at 12:54 pm

      Fetuses can feel pain as well and they don’t always result in killing their mother.

      Fetii cannot feel pain and they are sedated and anesthetized while in the womb.

      1) http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rc

      Evidence examined by the Working Party showed that the fetus,
      while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced
      sleep and is unconscious

      2) Also in 2005, David Mellor and colleagues reviewed several
      lines of evidence that suggested a fetus does not awaken during its time
      in the womb. Mellor notes that much of the literature on fetal pain
      simply extrapolates from findings and research on premature babies. He
      questions the value of such data:

      Systematic studies of fetal neurological function suggest, however,
      that
      there are major differences in the in utero environment and fetal
      neural state that make it likely that this assumption is substantially
      incorrect.

      He and his team detected the presence of such chemicals as
      adenosine, pregnanolone, and prostaglandin-D2 in both human and animal
      fetuses, indicating that the fetus is both
      sedated and anesthetized
      in the womb. These chemicals are oxidized with the newborn’s first few
      breaths and washed out of the tissues, allowing consciousness to occur.
      If the fetus is asleep throughout gestation then the possibility of
      fetal pain is greatly minimized. “A fetus,” Mellor told The New York
      Times, “is not a baby who just hasn’t been born yet.”

      Mellor, DJ; Diesch, TJ; Gunn, AJ; Bennet, L (2005). “The importance
      of ‘awareness’ for understanding fetal pain”. Brain research. Brain
      research reviews 49 (3): 455–71. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.01.006.
      PMID 16269314.

      3) There is also discussion among researchers about how pain is
      perceived over-all. Some researchers believe that because pain can
      involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, pain may not be sensed
      until after birth. Direct fetal analgesia is used in only a minority of
      prenatal surgeries.

      Johnson, Martin and Everitt, Barry. Essential reproduction

      4) The report argues that pain responses may begin to develop only
      after a baby is born, and no longer sedated in the womb, and that this
      may explain why neonates experience pain differently to fetuses. “It is
      only after birth, with the separation of the baby from the uterus and
      the umbilical cord, that wakefulness truly begins,” it concludes.

      http://www.newscientist.com/ar

      5) Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a
      noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress
      responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain,
      because they can be elicited
      by nonpainful stimuli and occur without
      conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli
      requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers
      begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational
      age, while
      electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain
      perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30
      weeks

      http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ar

      6) http://www.nature.com/pr/journ

      Furthermore, the fetus is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 21, 2013 at 5:34 am

      “[there is ]no evidence for the contention that human fetuses lack awareness”

      “fetal hearing, sleeping and waking, and memory, suggest otherwise.”

      “While it’s true, he writes, that fetuses at 20 weeks lack a cortex, that doesn’t mean stress and pain can’t be experienced in other ways.”

      http://fn.bmj.com/content/early/2011/02/02/adc.2010.195966.short

      Furthermore, the fetus is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation

      Are you justifying killing someone while they are sedated or sleeping?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 15, 2013 at 3:07 pm

      An infant is also entirely dependent on the mother.

      So if the woman dies in childbirth her newborn will immediately die because it cannot survive without her…right? Is that what you are asserting?

      It’s still debated whether or not cats or dogs have conscientiousness, ready to kill them off too?

      Were you homeschooled or something?

      And dogs and cats are in fact *conscious* and they are *sentient* and this means that they can in fact suffer. A zygote embryo fetus is incapable of suffering. Especially at the stage when most abortions take place, the embryo lacks any and all capacity for consciousness.

      But since you brought it up… since when does a women have 2 beating hearts and extra set of fingers and toes?

      The fetus is literally built using the woman’s body. Without sugar from her blood, calcium from her bones the fetus would not grow. It is literally CONSTRUCTED from HER. She is the raw material.

      Besides, if abortion was by definition infanticide, and a fetus was fully autonomous as you are claiming, then the ‘infant’ could be removed at any time and put up for adoption.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 16, 2013 at 9:18 am

      So if the woman dies in childbirth her newborn will immediately die because it cannot survive without her…right? Is that what you are asserting?

      It’s a possibility.

      Were you homeschooled or something?

      So now you’re discriminating against kids who were home schooled??? What is it with you bigoted pro aborts?

      I have 2 friends who were home schooled and are graduates of Yale and Oxford.

      At any rate… no.. I went to two very exclusive private all girls schools… 2 years in France 2 years out here.

      And dogs and cats are in fact *conscious* and they are *sentient* and this means that they can in fact suffer. A zygote embryo fetus is incapable of suffering. Especially at the stage when most abortions take place, the embryo lacks any and all capacity for consciousness.

      Actually research shows that as early as week 22 fetuses can feel pain and it doesn’t matter if we lack consciousness at our embryonic stage of development. We are still human.

      From 6 to 6½ weeks, the cerebral vesicles will double in size. Individualized brainwaves recorded via EEG have been reported as early as 6 weeks, 2 days.
      Also by 7 weeks, cell groupings resembling taste buds appear on the tongue and hiccups begin. Nasal plugs are prominent at this time and will persist for another 6 weeks or so.

      You can try to dehumanize us all you want, but it just shows the true colors of the pro abort….so please, do me the favor.

      The fetus is literally built using the woman’s body. Without sugar from her blood, calcium from her bones the fetus would not grow. It is literally CONSTRUCTED from HER. She is the raw material.

      Do you have a point?

      Besides, if abortion was by definition infanticide, and a fetus was fully autonomous as you are claiming, then the ‘infant’ could be removed at any time and put up for adoption.

      Never said abortion was by definition infanticide.
      Never claimed we are fully autonomous in utereo.

      Some of us have noticed your penchant — need, if you will–to construe and argue against a straw man.
      You’re very good at that… and you’re also very good at putting words into people’s mouths.
      Why are so many pro aborts like this?

      Perhaps because a straw man is all they can win against?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 16, 2013 at 1:03 pm

      It’s a possibility.

      Really? I was under the impression that infants were capable of breathing on their own, eating on their own, and shitting on their own. They don’t need another persons’ body to breathe for them, or to process nutrients and waste for them.

      Actually research shows that as early as week 22 fetuses can feel pain and it doesn’t matter if we lack consciousness at our embryonic stage of development. We are still human.

      Fetii can in fact not feel pain at 22 weeks, this has been disproven. In addition to this, they are sedated and anesthetized while in the womb.

      1) http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rc

      Evidence examined by the Working Party showed that the fetus,
      while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced
      sleep and is unconscious

      2) Also in 2005, David Mellor and colleagues reviewed several
      lines of evidence that suggested a fetus does not awaken during its time
      in the womb. Mellor notes that much of the literature on fetal pain
      simply extrapolates from findings and research on premature babies. He
      questions the value of such data:

      Systematic studies of fetal neurological function suggest, however,
      that
      there are major differences in the in utero environment and fetal
      neural state that make it likely that this assumption is substantially
      incorrect.

      He and his team detected the presence of such chemicals as
      adenosine, pregnanolone, and prostaglandin-D2 in both human and animal
      fetuses, indicating that the fetus is both
      sedated and anesthetized
      in the womb. These chemicals are oxidized with the newborn’s first few
      breaths and washed out of the tissues, allowing consciousness to occur.
      If the fetus is asleep throughout gestation then the possibility of
      fetal pain is greatly minimized. “A fetus,” Mellor told The New York
      Times, “is not a baby who just hasn’t been born yet.”

      Mellor, DJ; Diesch, TJ; Gunn, AJ; Bennet, L (2005). “The importance
      of ‘awareness’ for understanding fetal pain”. Brain research. Brain
      research reviews 49 (3): 455–71. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.01.006.
      PMID 16269314.

      3) There is also discussion among researchers about how pain is
      perceived over-all. Some researchers believe that because pain can
      involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, pain may not be sensed
      until after birth. Direct fetal analgesia is used in only a minority of
      prenatal surgeries.

      Johnson, Martin and Everitt, Barry. Essential reproduction

      4) The report argues that pain responses may begin to develop only
      after a baby is born, and no longer sedated in the womb, and that this
      may explain why neonates experience pain differently to fetuses. “It is
      only after birth, with the separation of the baby from the uterus and
      the umbilical cord, that wakefulness truly begins,” it concludes.

      http://www.newscientist.com/ar

      5) Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a
      noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress
      responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain,
      because they can be elicited
      by nonpainful stimuli and occur without
      conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli
      requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers
      begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational
      age, while
      electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain
      perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30
      weeks

      http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ar

      6) http://www.nature.com/pr/journ

      Furthermore, the fetus is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation

      And simply being ‘human’ does not give anyone the right to use another person’s body as life support. That’s called slavery. This is why organ donation is not mandatory – the right to life does not trump all other rights.

      From 6 to 6½ weeks, the cerebral vesicles will double in size. Individualized brainwaves recorded via EEG have been reported as early as 6 weeks, 2 days.

      “The question of when the human fetus develops the capacity for sentience is central to many contentious issues. The answer could and should influence attitudes toward IVF and embryo experimentation, abortion, and fetal and neonatal surgery. For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional. Fetal behaviour is described and the development of the underlying anatomical substrate and the chemical and electrical pathways
      involved in the detection, transmission, and perception of somatosensory stimuli are reviewed.
      It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.”

      http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911

      You can try to dehumanize us all you want, but it just shows the true colors of the pro abort….so please, do me the favor.

      Can’t dehumanize something that is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. I often wonder why anti-choicers put photos of stillborn babies on their fetal gore posters, vs. photos of zygotes? Any idea? Can’t dehumanize a zygote because there’s nothing human about it other than DNA.

      Never said abortion was by definition infanticide.
      Never claimed we are fully autonomous in utereo.

      You keep referring to the zygote/embryo/fetus as a CHILD. You keep saying that these CHILDREN should have the same rights as the pregnant person/born CHILDREN. You keep saying that these CHILDREN are UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS who if left alone, grow themselves.

      So yeah, your words strongly imply that you consider abortion to be infanticide.

      If you think a zygote is the moral equivalent of a born child, and should have the same rights as a born child, then why won’t you answer my question ‘ is abortion murder’ ?

      yes or no?

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 21, 2013 at 5:39 am

      Really? I was under the impression that infants were capable of breathing on their own, eating on their own, and shitting on their own. They don’t need another persons’ body to breathe for them, or to process nutrients and waste for them.

      yes they are, but they are still 100% dependent on someone or they will die.

      *derp*

      Fetii can in fact not feel pain at 22 weeks, this has been disproven. In addition to this, they are sedated and anesthetized while in the womb.

      see my last comment to you. New research conflicts with the 2010 study.

      Can’t dehumanize something that is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

      There you go again discriminating based on size.

      I often wonder why anti-choicers put photos of stillborn babies on their fetal gore posters, vs. photos of zygotes? Any idea?
      We don’t

      Can’t dehumanize a zygote because there’s nothing human about it other than DNA.

      Wrong again as usual.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 1:25 pm

      I just have one question. If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? How do you know the embryo/fetus/child doesn’t feel pain? Did you ask it? Have you ever seen a fetus/embryo try to dodge the abortionist instruments during an abortion? I have seen one, it’s not very clear, but it’s called the “Silent Scream”. I am currently looking for a better, more up-to-date video of an abortion being performed. But look up the “Silent Scream” and you’ll get to see the child in the womb actually screams as it is being torn apart.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm

      How do you know the embryo/fetus/child doesn’t feel pain?

      1)”The question of when the human fetus develops the capacity for sentience is central to many contentious issues. The answer could and should influence attitudes toward IVF and embryo experimentation, abortion, and fetal and neonatal surgery. For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional. Fetal behaviour is described and the development of the underlying anatomical substrate and the chemical and electrical pathways involved in the detection, transmission, and perception of somatosensory stimuli are reviewed. It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.”

      http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911

      2) http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rc

      Evidence examined by the Working Party showed that the fetus, while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious

      3) Also in 2005, David Mellor and colleagues reviewed several lines of evidence that suggested a fetus does not awaken during its time in the womb. Mellor notes that much of the literature on fetal pain simply extrapolates from findings and research on premature babies. He questions the value of such data:

      Systematic studies of fetal neurological function suggest, however, that there are major differences in the in utero environment and fetal neural state that make it likely that this assumption is substantially
      incorrect.

      He and his team detected the presence of such chemicals as
      adenosine, pregnanolone, and prostaglandin-D2 in both human and animal fetuses, indicating that the fetus is both
      sedated and anesthetized in the womb. These chemicals are oxidized with the newborn’s first few breaths and washed out of the tissues, allowing consciousness to occur. If the fetus is asleep throughout gestation then the possibility of
      fetal pain is greatly minimized. “A fetus,” Mellor told The New York Times, “is not a baby who just hasn’t been born yet.”

      Mellor, DJ; Diesch, TJ; Gunn, AJ; Bennet, L (2005). “The importance of ‘awareness’ for understanding fetal pain”. Brain research. Brain research reviews 49 (3): 455–71. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.01.006.
      PMID 16269314.

      4) There is also discussion among researchers about how pain is perceived over-all. Some researchers believe that because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, pain may not be sensed until after birth. Direct fetal analgesia is used in only a minority of prenatal surgeries.

      Johnson, Martin and Everitt, Barry. Essential reproduction

      5) The report argues that pain responses may begin to develop only after a baby is born, and no longer sedated in the womb, and that this may explain why neonates experience pain differently to fetuses. “It is only after birth, with the separation of the baby from the uterus and the umbilical cord, that wakefulness truly begins,” it concludes.

      http://www.newscientist.com/ar

      6) Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited
      by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30
      weeks

      http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ar

      7) http://www.nature.com/pr/journ

      Furthermore, the fetus is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation

      “The question of when the human fetus develops the capacity for sentience is central to many contentious issues. The answer could and should influence attitudes toward IVF and embryo experimentation, abortion, and fetal and neonatal surgery. For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the
      primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional. Fetal behaviour is described and the development of the underlying anatomical substrate and the chemical and electrical pathways

      involved in the detection, transmission, and perception of somatosensory stimuli are reviewed. It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit
      somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the
      central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the
      lower boundary for sentience could be placed.”

      http://informahealthcare.com/d

      Have you ever seen a fetus/embryo try to dodge the abortionist instruments during an abortion? I have seen one, it’s not very clear, but it’s called the “Silent Scream”

      See #6. In addition:

      Many members of the medical community were critical of the film, describing it as misleading and deceptive. Richard Berkowitz, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, described the film as “factually misleading and unfair”. John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film use of special effects deceptive, a form of “technical flimflam.” He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that “the fetus is thrashing about in alarm.” Hobbins questioned the titular “scream”, noting that “the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open”, that
      the “scream” may have been a yawn, and also that “mouth” identified on the blurry ultrasound in the film may in fact have been the space between the fetal chin and chest.Fetal development experts argued that, contrary to Nathanson’s
      assertion in the film, a fetus cannot perceive danger or make purposeful movements. David Bodian, a neurobiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, stated that doctors had no evidence that a twelve-week-old fetus could feel pain, but noted the possibility of a reflex movement by a fetus in
      response to external stimuli such as surgical instruments. The size of the ultrasound image and of the fetus model used was also misleading, appearing to show a fetus the size of a full-term baby, while in actuality a twelve-week-old fetus is under two inches long.

      Wallis, Claudia; Banta, Kenneth W. (March 25, 1985). “Medicine: Silent Scream”. TIME. Retrieved March 17, 2011.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 3:09 pm

      So, it has reflex movements. That must mean it has a developed central nervous system. Which means it must be able to feel.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 3:57 pm

      That must mean it has a developed central nervous system.

      You’re dumber than a box of rocks and clearly didn’t understand a thing I wrote.

      Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited
      by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing.

      An amoeba can react to noxious stimuli. So can an anencephalic fetus (a fetus without a brain). This is an automatic reflex from the brain stem, and means absolutely nothing.

      Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks

      You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 14, 2013 at 9:25 pm

      lol, link me some of these “reliable scientific studies”. I’m eager to see one that states that a new organism with their own bodily structures, life functions, and genetic code is just a part of another human organism’s body. XD

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 14, 2013 at 9:38 pm

      hahaha! I was thinking that too!!!! LOL

      good luck finding that one!

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 1:09 am

      Kate B…what about the law do you not understand. Killing babies is legal all the way up to 9 months. That’s why the abortionist are having to cut the baby’s throats to kill them before they’re born. Nice guys, huh!

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:17 am

      No, it isn’t.

      Abortion is illegal after 24 weeks with exceptions for medical emergency.

      You’re full of more shit than a french goose.

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 11:13 am

      You need to read the law. Start with Doe vs Bolton. Then read the laws banning ‘late-term’ abortions that apply up to the day of birth. If the abortionists cannot legally kill the child outside the womb, he/she must decapitate and dismember the child inside the womb before he or she is born. Your ignorance is showing.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:00 pm

      Elective late term abortions on healthy babies are illegal dumbfuck.

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 2:04 pm

      dance…try to explain that to all the normal healthy children who the abortionist called ‘abnormal’ so he could kill them and reap the harvest ($$$).

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 2:06 pm

      It is legal for any mother to hire an abortionist to kill her healthy child or children in her womb for “emotional” reasons like, “I’ve been depressed about this pregnancy”. That’ll do it. Any healthy child can be slaughtered for any reason the mother wants to give.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:07 pm

      Incorrect.

      In NY state for example a woman cannot abort a post-viability pregnancy past 24 weeks even if it is for health reasons. She can ONLY abort if the pregnancy is killing her. Otherwise, she has to carry the dying fetus to term, no matter the pain – physical and emotional.

      You’re full of more shit than a french goose.

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 2:14 pm

      You are wrong. Again, read Doe vs Bolton. Any mother can have her baby killed for any physical OR emotional reason (“I’m upset over this pregnancy.”)

      But..are you telling us you think abortion is WRONG unless the baby doesn’t measure up physically? 🙂

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:21 pm

      If that was legal, Gosnell would not be in jail, dumbass.

      The Court’s opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined “health” as follows:

      “Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, “an abortion is necessary” is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

      Jesus fucking Christ you’re a dumbfuck. Reading comprehension isn’t your strongsuit is it?

      Yeah, health. As in, she’s fucking dying from the pregnancy. Or the fetus is. Or her mental health – as in, the pregnancy is causing severe hormonal imbalances and depression that lead to suicide. As in, she is SCHIZOPHRENIC and pregnancy worsens the condition or requires that she does not use her meds. Age – right, you think 12 year old rape victims should be forced to give birth if raped.

      Your stupidity is breathtaking.

      But..are you telling us you think abortion is WRONG unless the baby doesn’t measure up physically? 🙂

      An anencephalic fetus – when the brain does not develop – cannot survive outside the womb. It is not a matter of ‘measuring up physically’ – it is a matter of a deformity so severe that the baby is literally a bag of skin and bones, NO BRAIN!!!

      http://iheartautopsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/anencephaly1.gif

      http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg3/PERI096.jpg

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 2:42 pm

      So you didn’t see that word “emotional”….mommy can say she’s ‘upset’ over the pregnancy, and you would decapitate her baby for her, I have no doubt. Yep, it’s legal.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:49 pm

      No dude. It’s for serious fucking suicidal depression. That kind of emotional problem.

      Or fucking schizophrenia.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:06 pm

      These are the kinds of babies that are aborted, because they have conditions that are incompatible with life, you ignorant fucktard:

      http://lh5.ggpht.com/_h-wGQYKNYTc/TW0u04dkD8I/AAAAAAAAC7Y/68y7kOOp29M/fallujabirthdefects%5B139%5D.jpg?imgmax=800

      And late term abortions also occur when the woman’s life is at risk. Tell us, do you think a woman should DIE giving birth?

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm

      Oh, how wrong you are. What if we thought it was okay to kill nasty people like you….you’d be singing a different story! haha

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:12 pm

      Citation needed.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm

      Tell us, do you think a woman should DIE giving birth?

      And answer this question while you are at it.

      Should a woman be denied a life saving abortion? Or do you expect her to die during pregnancy from eclampsia, cancer, sepsis and so on?

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 2:20 pm

      I have no doubt that if it were up to you, every single baby in “life saving” situations would be decapitated and dismembered instead of induced for birth so that both mother and baby could be cared for. Why do you hate babies so?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:22 pm

      Nice strawman, but pro-choice is not forced abortion.

      And you still haven’t answered my question.

      Should a woman be denied a life saving abortion? Or do you expect her to die during pregnancy from eclampsia, cancer, sepsis and so on?

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 10:08 pm

      Seriously, does no-one understand the concept of ‘choice’? Yeah, if it’s safer, I’d say let the pregnant person elect to have a dismembered fetus removed from hir body. Many people, though, would choose induction. Both are valid.

    • Dmember

      December 2, 2013 at 10:21 pm

      tsara – then we should have the choice to dismember you. Not such a good thought when you’re the victim, is it? Oh well, if you have no empathy with unborn children, you probably have no soul either.

    • tsara

      December 3, 2013 at 1:44 am

      If I’m inside of someone else’s body? Go for it.

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 2:45 pm

      Die giving birth??? You are so lacking in medical knowledge I must defer to others who love baby killing as much as you, so you can all lie to each other and be happy with all these violent baby killings.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:52 pm

      580k women die worldwide from birth.

      1.2 million per year are permanently disabled in the USA alone

      Pregnancy is the biggest killer of teenage girls worldwide, with one million dying or suffering serious injury, infection or disease.

      “n fact, conditions ranging from ectopic pregnancy,
      in which an embryo implants outside the uterus, to preeclampsia, which
      causes skyrocketing blood pressure and can lead to strokes and seizures,
      can and do threaten the lives of pregnant women.
      Preeclampsia and gestational high blood pressure occur in about 6
      percent to 8 percent of U.S. pregnancies, according to the National
      Institutes of Health (NIH).

      While those conditions are common, many individual cases have
      complications as well, said Alison Cahill, an assistant professor of
      obstetrics and gynecology at the Washington University School of
      Medicine in St. Louis.

      “As a high-risk obstetrician, I see many women, in addition to those
      things, who have pre-existing conditions, so other illness or medical
      problems that then make their pregnancy high-risk,” Cahill told
      LiveScience.”

      “Statistics tell a different story. In fact, though pregnancy-related
      deaths fell dramatically in the 20th century, they have been on the rise
      since 1987, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
      Prevention. There were 7.2 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987. By
      2003, that number had risen to 14.5 deaths per 100,000 live births.”

      “Ectopic pregnancy, for example, affects 19.7 out of every 1,000 North
      American pregnancies, according to a paper published in February 2000
      in the journal American Family Physician. In these cases, embryos almost
      always implant in the fallopian tubes, the connection between the
      ovaries and the uterus. The fallopian tubes aren’t capable of supporting
      a pregnancy; a growing embryo will rupture them, which can cause
      uncontrollable bleeding. There is no technology available to save these
      pregnancies.

      Some ectopic pregnancies miscarry on their own, but most require a
      surgical or medical abortion to prevent those life-threatening ruptures.

      Preeclampsia
      is another pregnancy condition that stumps modern medicine. The
      condition usually develops after 20 weeks of gestation for reasons not
      fully understood. The only treatment is delivery.

      Embolism (when a clot blocks a blood vessel), hemorrhage and the
      exacerbation of pre-existing conditions such as diabetes or heart
      disease are the top causes of pregnancy-related death, according to a
      2003 paper published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. That
      study also found that pregnancy complications are not equal-opportunity
      killers. Black women were nearly four times as likely as white women to
      die because of pregnancy. Teens and women in their late 30s or older
      were also at higher risk of pregnancy-related deaths.

      Pregnancy can also turn chronic conditions into life-threatening ones.
      Cardiovascular disorders such as pulmonary hypertension and vessel
      abnormalities can be worsened by pregnancy, Cahill said. Pre-existing
      liver and kidney diseases can also threaten expectant mothers’ lives.”

      http://www.livescience.com/24127-fact-check-walsh-pregnancy-can-kill.html

      YOU WOULD BE WRONG
      SCIENCE +1
      DMEMBER 0

    • Elena Maria

      November 12, 2013 at 2:11 am

      Where in your universe can men choose not to be a father? A man has zero rights over his biological child until it’s born, yet regardless of his desire to be a father or not be father, a woman can choose to have an abortion or refuse not to, but the man has no say. A woman (bless those that do) who chooses not to have an abortion and keep the baby (or give it up for adoption) can legally require a biological father to support the child, at least financially, util 18 yrs. of age. You need a reality check

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 1:08 am

      So AugustW….what sucks about abortion? Aside from the candy land and fun times? Could it be the killing?

      The “women” you’re talking about are mothers. And you want them to be as irresponsible as the dads? Wow…let’s all be equally…evil! Great solution!

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:17 am

      Is a 12 year old rape victim also a ‘mother’ ?

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 10:59 am

      Well, dance….you figure it out. No, wait, I’m sure you would conclude she’s the father.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:10 pm

      You would send a 12 year rape victim to prison for life for aborting her pregnancy, yes?

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:09 pm

      On the other hand, if all the men in the world would just keep their fucking pants on, we wouldn’t have this issue either. Not a lot of women getting THEMSELVES pregnant, are there?

      Go fuck yourself.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 9:45 am

      Men and women are welcome to have all the sex they want. They just shouldn’t be willing to kill any resulting offspring in order to get it hassle-free.

      Nice that you resorted to the “Go fuck yourself.” after some facts were brought up. Kinda shows where your head is.

      And men can choose not to be parents all they like, but Child Support Enforcement might beg to differ.

    • Kate B

      November 14, 2013 at 4:25 pm

      They could ‘choose not to be parents’ by not having sex, if the burden you are placing on women also applies equally to them. But no, it’s women who are being told to ‘keep their legs closed’ which is the only truly reliable way of preventing pregnancy.
      Are you saying women have no right to a sex life unless they are prepared and ready to have a child? That they should only have sex a couple of times in the whole time that they are capable of having children? Because no birth control method is 100 percent reliable.
      Lots of women are simply not ready to have children. Morally, I’d have a much harder time forcing a scared, unprepared woman to bring an unwanted child into the world, potentially to face a lifetime of neglect than in aborting a 6 week old fetus.
      The rights of the mother, and the rights of living, breathing children take precedence over the rights of a barely formed fetus.

    • Kaliane Moloch

      November 14, 2013 at 6:03 pm

      Yeah, antis love using the words ‘until’ and ‘ready’. What if you simply don’t want kids?

    • Kate B

      November 14, 2013 at 6:12 pm

      Kaliane – absolutely. The people crying “think of the children!” should realize that they’re not doing children any favours by forcing them upon women who don’t want them.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 21, 2013 at 1:38 am

      Then, apparently, we’re supposed to never fuck. Because that’s totes reasonable and always works. We should feel sad for these people that their sex lives suck so badly that they want everyone else to suffer along with them. /eyeroll

    • Faye Valentine

      November 14, 2013 at 9:23 pm

      “They could ‘choose not to be parents’ by not having sex, if the burden you are placing on women also applies equally to them. But no, it’s women who are being told to ‘keep their legs closed’ which is the only truly reliable way of preventing pregnancy.”

      But that’s why I started by saying “Men and women…”

      And If you had a tubal ligation, were using a condom, and a diaphragm at the same time, any kid who gets past all of that should be given a medal just for existing.

      “Are you saying women have no right to a sex life unless they are prepared and ready to have a child? That they should only have sex a couple of times in the whole time that they are capable of having children? Because no birth control method is 100 percent reliable.”

      No SINGLE method of birth control is 100 percent reliable, but the failure rate of multiple forms used together is astronomically small.

      But, yeah, if penis-in-vagina sex is taking place, there is ALWAYS going to be at least a tiny chance that procreation might occur, and anyone who is sexually mature enough to conceive a child should be prepared for the chance that a child might come into being. Sorry, that’s just how Biology works.

      “Lots of women are simply not ready to have children.”

      Yep. And I’ve been one of those women. But guess what? If you’re pregnant, you already have at least one child. Too bad, so sad, but you just have to deal with it without killing anyone.

      “Morally, I’d have a much harder time forcing a scared, unprepared woman to bring an unwanted child into the world, potentially to face a lifetime of neglect than in aborting a 6 week old fetus.”

      So morally, you’d have a harder time with allowing a child to live (since if a woman is pregnant, her child is ALREADY “into the world”, since the uterus isn’t some alternate dimension where theoretical beings exist), than giving that same child the opportunity to live despite hardships that they will have the opportunity to overcome. What’s so “moral” about that?

      “The rights of the mother, and the rights of living, breathing children take precedence over the rights of a barely formed fetus.”

      No, all rights of all living human beings (because even in utero, human beings are undergoing respiration and basic life functions-they ARE living) are equal, and the fundamental human right that every human organism should have at minimum is the right to life. There’s not a sliding scale for how human various different human organisms are. That’s highly bigoted.

    • Coyote

      August 30, 2014 at 3:17 am

      “But no, it’s women who are being told to ‘keep their legs closed’ which is the only truly reliable way of preventing pregnancy.”

      For reference, I *have* heard some/many pro-choicers tell males to “keep it in their pants” or something along those lines while refusing to say anything of this sort to females.

    • Kate B

      November 14, 2013 at 4:18 pm

      Did someone really, actually just say this? Women who have abortions are just whores who can’t keep their legs closed?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 15, 2013 at 3:15 pm

      So how much jail time should women get for procuring an abortion?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 15, 2013 at 5:02 pm

      FYI, you misogynist piece of shit, many pro-choice women have large families (two that I know have 5 and 7 kids apiece) and one woman I know went through 10 months of the extremely dangerous condition known as hypereminsis gravidarum (nonstop vomiting, nausea and severe dehydration than can result in death) to give birth to her also very pro-choice son.

      And lest we forget, your pro-life bible thumping buddies often kill their own children through abuse and neglect.

      They deny their children life-saving treatment and instead pray for healing.

      They beat their children to death, as in the case Lydia Schatz, because God says that children must not be spared the rod.

      /spit

    • Tapetum

      November 23, 2013 at 11:38 pm

      Temporary discomfort? Says someone who’s never suffered from symphysis pubic dysfunction. More then seven years before walking wasn’t painful. And that’s without counting minor things like crash surgery without anesthesia, which was temporary – albeit I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.

      But I’m such a whore, I know. Having sex with my husband is such a tramp thing to do.

    • Ariela

      November 12, 2013 at 9:09 am

      But to end the pregnancy is to end the existing child’s life… you cant just kill someone because they cause you some form of burden.

      Parenthood is a much more physical, mental, emotional strain than pregnancy… and it lasts much much longer! So, if I decide I dont want to endure this strain anymore, can I please just kill my kid?

    • Kate B

      November 14, 2013 at 4:27 pm

      Here is where we fundamentally differ.
      Because I cannot define an early-term fetus as a ‘child’.

    • Ariela

      November 15, 2013 at 11:45 am

      Just because you cannot define the early-term fetus as a child, does not mean that it is not one.

      Curious: When in their development do you allow them to be called a “child”? Do you wait until they are out of the womb? Or that middle point that doctors currently use base on viability outside of the womb?

      I define “child” as simply the biological offspring of its human parents. If the process of their development has begun, then they are now a real and existing human child.

      To me, they are clearly a child at conception because:
      – they instantly have their own, unique DNA to their parents (biologically related to both mother and father but not the same as parents, so not part of either of their bodies)
      – they are definitely human, their DNA matches our species and no other
      – their gender is already determined (when sperm and egg joined, X egg with a XorY sperm determines gender, so straight away it’s a male or female) — so if a boy (XY), again they are definitely not part of a woman’s body as she is XX.
      – they are growing, like all children grow, and at a super-fast rate… unfortunately not fast enough to be protected from our culture’s current laws, but so fast that if born full term, he/she will be 6-million times it’s weight at conception (that’s just an interesting fact I heard recently that I wanted to share 🙂 and a 20 year old adult, is on average only about 20 times their newborn weight… so much is happening to that little human in those 9 short months in the womb).

      If we were to bring some DNA into a lab to do a say paternity test – both the cells of the fetus and a born child would give exactly the same results (if the same human being at those different stages in life). Because their DNA does not change from inside-womb to outside-womb – still the same entity, the same being… just at different stages of physical development… like infant is different to toddler is different to preschooler, etc… but no more or less in existence.

      So this tiny, individual, growing human life is in existence since conception… but our currently laws allow them to be destroyed if they are considered a potential burden to their parents if they continue growing and be born.

      The sad part is that, an aborted early-term fetus’s (a term not usually given to the unborn until about 11 weeks gestation when they have all their major organs and limbs present, and look more like a tiny human being than when they were an embryo) is basically treated like they never existed in the first place… they weren’t developed enough to be considered significant to law-makers, or even their own parents, or to people like you. These people believe the abortion is just stopping “the pregnancy” from producing a human life, instead of the reality that it stopped an actual human life already produced from continuing to grow.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 1:36 pm

      And again, you prove that the so called “pro-choice” side is just jousting at windmills, willing to “make-up” when the embryo is human or a child, or viable. A potential human is an egg and sperm that have not made the chemical connection necessary to conceive the child. A child is a developing entity that has been conceived. If you know anything about chemical and biological reactions, and you use reason (I don’t even have to look anything up for this particular argument) you can figure out using your own intellect that a child is human from the moment of conception. Where the pro-choice side gets it wrong is in the semantics, thinking that the fetal stage of development is only potential life, whereas science, logic, and reasoning tell us that the fetus IS life.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 2:07 pm

      A child is a developing entity that has been conceived. If you know anything about chemical and biological reactions, and you use reason (I don’t even have to look anything up for this particular argument) you can figure out using your own intellect that a child is human from the moment of conception.

      It is human, just like every cell in your body. But it is not a human BEING. Human BEINGS are sentient and sapient, a mass of cells is not.

      Here, some actual science from some actual biologists who are not ignorant fuckwits such as yourself:

      1)Biologist Johnathan M Sullivan MD PhD writes:

      You and I contain much, much more information, both genetic and otherwise, than a blastocyst. That’s why I can write this column and you can read it, whereas a blastocyst just.. .sits there. Indeed, that is the exactly the point of stem cell research: the stem cells in the blastocyst have not
      yet acquired the molecular programming required for differentiation, and so they remain pluripotent, awaiting the necessary molecular signals (the information) that will tell them whether to become nerve or muscle, skin or bone.

      Blastocysts are nothing more than a little clump of cells, each of them a snippet of DNA surrounded by cytoplasm. But that DNA was later transcribed into RNA, and that RNA was translated into proteins. And some of those proteins were transcription factors that told other cells

      in the blastocyst what to do, when to divide, where to migrate. Transcription factors regulated the expression of still other transcription factors. Genes were turned on and off with clockwork precision. Some genes were methylated, so they could never be turned on
      again.

      In other words, the genome and the proteome of the blastocyst were changed as the embryo accumulated molecular information that the blastocyst did not have.

      The embryo became a fetus, with complex orientations of
      tissues–loaded with spatial, genetic, biochemical and mechanical information that simply did not exist in the embryo.

      The fetus became a child with a nervous system, and that nervous system sucked up information about the world, hard-wiring pathways for vision and movement, learning to make subtle distinctions between this and that, accumulating information that simply did not exist in the
      fetus.

      In other words, the blastocyst launched a genetic program that both extracted and acquired information. It didn’t start out as a human being. It became a human being, with a personality, feelings, attitudes and memories, by accumulating information that was not there before.

      Equating a blastocyst with a human being is like equating a brand new copy of an inexpensive spreadsheet program with the priceless databases that you’ll eventually build up with that program. It’s no less ridiculous than saying that a blueprint has the same value as a skyscraper–that it is the skycraper.

      No. They are not the same.

      2) Biologist Scott Gilbert writes:

      Genetics

      This view states that a genetically unique person begins at
      conception – a fertilized egg now hosts a complete genome, making it distinct from the sex cells that came before it. This definition has the advantage of saying that a new individual has been created that can be distinct from its parents, but is still limited by the fact that this embryo is still in an early stage of development and far from viable as an individual.

      This view also causes a funny paradox in the case of monozygotic (identical) twins: each twin does not exist as an individual when “its life begins” – that is, when it is conceived as the embryo doesn’t split into two parts until later. This paradox could possibly be resolved by considering the pre-twinning embryo as a disparate entity from either of the resulting embryos. This is why viewing the formation of
      life as a continuous process rather than a single event is beneficial.

      Instructions for Development and Heredity are NOT all in the
      Fertilised egg. The view that we are genetically determined by the combination of parental DNA has been shown to fall far short of the complete story. How the DNA is interpreted can vary greatly affected by things such as the maternal diet. Similarly some development requires certain bacteria to be present. Thirdly, and most surprisingly, the
      level of maternal care can determine which areas of DNA are ‘methylated’ which radically alters how they are interpreted. As such the view that we are ‘complete but unformed’ at conception is far from accurate.

      The Embryo is NOT Safe Within the Womb. Modern research shows that 30% or fewer fertilised eggs will go on to become foetuses. Many of these early miscarriages
      are because of abnormal numbers of chromosomes. The view that every fertilised egg is a potential human being is wrong in around 70% of cases.

      There is NOT a Moment of Fertilisation when the passive egg receives the active sperm.Again recent research has shown that the previous commonly held view that the fastest sperm races towards the egg and, bingo, we’re up and running is wrong on many levels. Fertilisation is a
      process taking up to four days. As such there is no magic moment, rather there is a process. There is NO consensus amongst scientists that life begins at conception.There isn’t even consensus amongst scientists as to whether there’s consensus. There is no consensus amongst embryologists, let alone scientists.

      Neurology

      Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognisable Electroencephalography[wp] (EEG) pattern from the fetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception.

      The point of using neurological factors rather than other signs such as a heartbeat is that this is a much more useful indicator from the point of view of science. A heart beats using mostly involuntary muscle movements so is really little different from any other spontaneous motion or metabolic processes. A heartbeat means relatively little in real
      terms, although it is more dramatic from an emotive point of view.

      http://www.amazon.ca/Developme

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm

      So you concede it is human, but because it is not a human being it isn’t life. That’s as stupid as saying that “because the mother doesn’t believe she is pregnant, her pregnancy doesn’t exist”. Keep dancing with words to convince yourself that at a certain stage of development it is okay to kill a human.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 3:54 pm

      Oh, it’s life.

      It just doesn’t have the same moral status as the woman, because it is incomplete and unformed.

      Until it develops the capacity for sentience it really is nothing more than a blob of cells.

      And even if we do pretend that it is a ‘person’ for the sake of argument, it still would NOT have the right to use another persons’ body as life support. Born children do not even have the right to legally force their parents to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/tissue to save their own lives.

      Why should a fetus be granted a right that no born child has? If a fetus is to be treated as a person, and no person has the right to use another’s body as life support, then the fetus has no claim to the woman’s body.

    • Mikster

      October 29, 2013 at 2:40 pm

      I had 4 c sections to birth 4 very wanted, planned and cherished children. But to force the possibility of that risk onto an unwilling woman? Abhorrent & despicable.

    • JollyJuggler

      November 9, 2013 at 12:52 am

      Bet you had pain relief through your ordeal huh? But your ok with inflicting death (you know that is permanent right) via being ripped apart or stabbed in the back of the head, born too early and left to die etc on an unwilling unborn child!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Change your name to abhorrent & despicable.

    • Mikster

      November 10, 2013 at 1:14 pm

      Nice hyperbole. I am “OK” with permitting each and every women to choose the set of short and long term risks attendant and inherent to either continued gestation and childbirth OR abortion, since SHE and she alone is one who was born into that body and will bear the ramifications of those choices IN that body until it dies. But if your rhetoric makes it easier for you to pretend you have the right to make those choices for her- go for it. It won’t change her rights to autonomy over body a whit.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 7:18 pm

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9954BajOh4

      which one of these has the right to the organ?

    • Kate B

      November 14, 2013 at 4:29 pm

      Ludicrous hyperbole.
      You are aware that the vast majority of abortions happen very early, and that abortion is illegal past 12 weeks in most states?
      A pre-12 week fetus is not a baby. It cannot feel pain, it has no consciousness, so you’re not ‘inflicting’ anything on it.
      Late term abortion is a different matter, and morally, yes I’d have a problem with aborting a 24 week old fetus that is capable of living independently, can feel pain, and has some degree of consciousness.

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 9, 2013 at 9:43 am

      “Unwilling women” can avoid that abhorrent possibility by willingly not getting pregnant.

    • Mikster

      November 10, 2013 at 11:33 am

      Isaiah, mind your own uterus. Until the short and long term risks in either continued gestation and childbirth OR abortion are YOUR to assume, it’s not ANY of your concern whatsoever.

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 10, 2013 at 12:34 pm

      Mikster,
      Bless you for having carried your four children to birth.
      As for whose concern is whose, would that mean that neither you nor I would have the right, for example, to oppose wars, capital punishment, corporate pollution, or racism just because we have never experienced any of them? Since we live in society together with everyone else, I choose to request that society to live and operate where all people have the right to life (the right on which all other rights depend), liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the freedom, let’s say, of speech.

    • Mikster

      November 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm

      However, you do NOT have the right to choose the health care procedures and the attendant risks another person undergoes.
      Your choices do not extend into the bodies and wombs of any other person.

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 10, 2013 at 4:32 pm

      Well, Mikster, what about if another person’s body is in the womb? Does mom (of course, not dad) get to exercise death control? Based on all scientific evidence, even pro-aborts acknowledge that the unborn is alive and human. So their position now has shifted to, “So what?” The big person’s rights trump, in EVERY single circumstance, the little person’s. At best, this is unladylike, ungentlemany, unchivalrous. At worst… well, your conscience will have to answer. Bless you.
      Over and out.

    • Mikster

      November 10, 2013 at 4:40 pm

      Two entities cannot have equal rights over the organ. The person who *owns* the organ, was born with the organ and will continue to have that organ until it is removed or they die are the only ones who can decide what they will permit inside of said organ.

      As for the *human being* issue- not so quick with the assumptions of what pro-choice people believe. (And as an aside, I am pro-choice and give you the respect of calling you pro-life instead of anti-woman. ).

      ——————————————————————————–

      Australia

      Division 3 – Homicide: Suicide: Concealment of Birth: Abortion

      156. When a child becomes a human being A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not and whether the umbilical cord is severed or not.

      ——————————————————————————–

      Canada
      (Hansard Extract)

      Currently a human being is defined in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada as follows: A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

      (a) it has breathed,
      (b) it has independent circulation, or
      (c) the navel string is severed.

      ——————————————————————————–

      USA
      In current United States law, at the moment of birth a biological being becomes a human being. By contrast, in declaring in 1973 that abortion is a permissible medical procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” (Hardin 1982:138) The transition to the status of full humanity is viewed not as a biological fact, but as a legal or cultural fact. There is a practical aspect pointed out by Retired Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark: the moment of birth is known, but the moment of conception is speculative. “…the law deals in reality not obscurity–the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation.” (Swomley 1983:1)

      ——————————————————————————–

      UK
      DISCUSSION POINT: What is a human being?

      What do the Courts say about this?

      The courts have asked this question in relation to the fetus and a corpse. In this context the courts are very much guided by medical opinion, and less by moral principles. The central question they ask themselves is at what stage in the process of birth does a fetus become a person, and at what stage in the process of death does a person become a corpse. Essentially the courts have decided that fetuses and corpses are not persons.

      So, in other words, the fully sentient woman who will live with the consequences and risks of her productive health will and certainly deserves to be the only one who weighs in on the course of a pregnancy.

      Now you can keep answering, but this is my last round of reading and answering them, as, quite frankly, I truly DO belief that abortion is not your business and won’t entertain any more discussion after these initial courtesy responses. Even my own husband and sons know better.

    • Ariela

      November 12, 2013 at 10:26 am

      Mikster: obviously legal and scientific definitions of “human being” are at odds here… unfortunately many a law has been based on bad science…. also just because somethïng is legal does not mean it is morally right / a good thing.

      Yeah, the women will have to live with the consequences… just like all those with regrets of killing their child thanks to people like you that think you’re helping them, when you’re just harming them. Listen to the stories of former abortionist doctors or former abortion clinic staff turned pro-life… they thought they were on the noble side helping the women until they realized what they were actually doing and the harm it was actually causing to the mothers and themselves (you can’t be a party to that not be be effected)…

      pregnancy is generally never as bad as to justify ending a child’s life… people think that abortion will erase the child like they never existed… were miscarried and stillborn kids non-existent entities too? does the mother need to want a child for them to exist? pregnancies end, but motherhood is forever – whether you acknowledge the child or not

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:14 pm

      There is a legal definition of life and it’s not inside the womb.

      Hell, even Catholic Housing requires a child to be born in order for it to count on your housing application.

    • Kate B

      November 14, 2013 at 4:30 pm

      But an early-term fetus is not a person. The rights of the mother – an actual living, breathing person, should take precedence over the rights of the barely formed fetus in her uterus.

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 14, 2013 at 6:25 pm

      What/who do you think/feel is a person? Why?

    • BJ Survivor

      November 21, 2013 at 4:14 pm

      This has been told to you, multiple times. Not our fault that you lack reading comprehension or logic skills.

    • Ariela

      November 15, 2013 at 12:58 pm

      But the rights to not be pregnant (a temporary condition) shouldn’t overrule another human’s right to be alive (a very permanent condition!).

      How about we try to find a way that both the pregnancy can end and the fetus can stay alive? Maybe we need more research into surrogacy and enabling a fetus to be transferred into another womb…

      Right now, ending the mother’s pregnancy through abortion means ending the fetus’s life.

      Even in the rare cases where a live baby is born from a failed abortion, abortionists would often kill the child (e.g. Gosnell) or leave them to die by not providing any care, even compassionate care (e.g. on a table or in a bucket)… because their aim is to kill/erase the child of the pregnancy, not just simply end the condition of pregnancy.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 1:53 pm

      Kate, I’m just going to say this once. The fetus is a much a person as you or I. You sound like a broken record, “The fetus is not a person, the fetus is not a person” how many times have you had to repeat that to yourself while holding your head between your knees and rocking on the floor before you actually believed it?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 2:11 pm

      People are sentient, sapient, autonomous individuals.

      The fetus is incomplete unformed, non-sentient non-sapient.

      And when the majority of abortions occur, it is literally a clump of cells.

      http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls6w7phG8f1qi68z9.jpg

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 3:00 pm

      That’s wonderful that you can show a picture of an aborted, torn apart child and you call it a clump of cells. Bravo, you haven’t proven anything.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 3:49 pm

      There is nothing that was torn apart…it’s a clump of cells.

      In fact, with most pre-9 week abortions, the embryo is removed whole, like this, and it is smaller than a peanut.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Human_Embryo.JPG

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:13 pm

      “Mind your own uterus”. I love this.

    • Luke S

      November 10, 2013 at 7:34 pm

      cause alot of the time failed contraception!!

      Responsible Parenthood

      8. The Obligation of Parenthood
      “Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.”

      9. Biological Laws and Innate Drives
      “With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.”

      10. The Factors of Having Children
      “With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

      11. The Catholic Order of the Household
      “Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.”

      12. Man Cannot Recreate Marriage to His Will
      “From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.”

    • BJ Survivor

      November 21, 2013 at 4:13 pm

      No woman can “will” pregnancy. Just as she cannot “will” a pregnancy away. Nor can she “will” away horrific pregnancy or fetal development complications. Not biologically possible.

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 22, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      Sorry, BJ. You have misstated me. I certainly did not say that no woman can “will” pregnancy. Of course she can’t. She can try hard to get pregnant in all sorts of ways. But with all that, she cannot will herself so. What I did say, as you will see with a more careful reading, is that a woman has all the control she needs to NOT get pregnant. The more specific name of the control is self-control. Since we know women are strong, vital, and intelligent human beings, they are most capable of living and acting in such a way, according to their nature, that they will not become pregnant if that is their choice; in this way, they will avoid what for some is a very agonizing choice, indeed. BTW, everything here pertains equally to any and every man who wishes not to impregnate a woman and thus become an unwilling father. I am all for choosing to use willpower. It’s what separates us from the lower forms of life.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 5:29 pm

      Again, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Just like getting into a car is not consent to getting into a horrific car accident, though accidents are a risk of getting into a car. Try again, pantysniffer.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 6:01 pm

      Then why don’t I ever see “pro-lifers” castigate men for spreading their sperm willy-nilly? I only ever see your ilk coming down on women, laying all the blame and responsibility upon women. Men, of course, never lose their bodily autonomy or even get one iota of the blame for impregnating women.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 22, 2013 at 6:53 pm

      What I did say, as you will see with a more careful reading, is that a woman has all the control she needs to NOT get pregnant.

      All known forms of birth control fail except a complete hysterectomy.

      Abstinence only does not work, as evidenced by the fact that the highest teen pregnancy rates are in abstinence only states – MS and Texas for example.

      You cannot expect a married couple to abstain from sex the 30+ years that they are married. And yes, married women have abortions. Also, men feel entitled to sex. You left that part out. Yet it’s the woman’s fault, she is the criminal, for spreading her legs.

      BTW, everything here pertains equally to any and every man who wishes not to impregnate a woman and thus become an unwilling father

      Well if you expect women to act as life support for a fetus then I hope that you would expect the same of men. Do you support forcing men to donate blood/organs/tissue/bone marrow to preserve the life of the fetus during the pregnancy? And how about after? You said *equal* – so, make it equal. If women are going to put life and limb on the line, so should men.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 22, 2013 at 6:54 pm

      I am all for choosing to use willpower. It’s what separates us from the lower forms of life

      Actually, the decision to choose if and when one will become pregnant is what separates us from the lower forms of life.

      Animals go into heat, fuck for a couple of weeks, and have babies. This is what you expect women to do. To give birth every time they have sex – whether they want to or not. That is animalistic.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 24, 2013 at 6:23 pm

      Right? I’ve had forced-birthers claim that animals are pro-life. Such dumbfuckery should be criminal. They’ve obviously never heard of animals eating their young for various and sundry reasons.

    • AugustW

      November 1, 2013 at 9:51 pm

      I was pro-choice before I had my sweet little oops baby, but I am even more so since then. She WAS MY CHOICE and I think that means more than if the state had mandated that I carry her to term.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 6, 2013 at 5:48 pm

      Way to reduce you child’s life to just a choice. As if her life is on par with what car you drive or what color lipstick you should wear. Way to go, Mom Of The Year!

    • AugustW

      November 6, 2013 at 10:00 pm

      She’s a living breathing person now, but she was once a bundle of cells, and yeah, her life was my choice. Sorry. Go read Handmaids Tale and dream of a world where you can force your opinions on others.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 6, 2013 at 11:32 pm

      She was “a living breathing person” then, too. She was the same human organism she is now back then, the only changes are her growth and development as an organism. Respiration was occurring, she was growing, and all the life signs she needed to continue doing so were present. If she wasn’t “a living breathing person” back then, that’s called a miscarriage, and it’s sometimes called “fetal demise”-you can’t “demise” if you’re not living. We are all “a bundle of cells”. The worst way of forcing your opinion on others is killing your child in an abortion because it’s your opinion that they’re not really persons and just “a bundle of cells”.

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:17 pm

      I had a miscarriage a few weeks in to a pregnancy. I saw it. It was definitely not a child, sorry. Honestly, if a doctor hadn’t told me what it was, I would have thought I had a heavier period than normal.

      I’ve never had an abortion (unless you count the one my body had all on it’s own), and I’m not the one pushing my opinion on anybody else. The whole reason I’m pro-choice is because I don’t believe I have the right to tell someone else what to do with their uterus.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 8:11 am

      I’m sorry, but we don’t operate scientifically based wholly on “Eh…well….it kinda *looks* like it should be a person, then…”

      I’m sorry you lack compassion for your child who died. But your estimation that they were “definitely not a person”, even after a doctor told you otherwise, is irrelevant to the reality of the situation.

      I’m fighting against other people “pushing their opinion” upon children that they are “definitely not children” to the point of them forcing death upon those children. I do this because I became pregnant unwillingly, unwantedly, at a terrible time in my life, by my partner who abused me. He wanted me to abort our daughter. However, due to having completed college Biology and watching my mother undergo the process of creating my 5 younger siblings, it’s quite obvious that children are involved, so I refused. My parents had never discussed abortion with me, and shielded me from it my entire life. I didn’t even know that there were such people in the world who would pay a doctor to kill their child before that child can even be born.

      So, the whole reason I’m pro-life is, I don’t believe I have the right to have my children killed at any point in their lives, and I don’t think that anyone should be allowed to force death upon a child, no matter how young.

    • heather

      November 14, 2013 at 3:17 pm

      I had a miscarriage 8 weeks into pregnancy. It definitely looked like a child. I don’t really see your point at all about whether it looked like a child at that particular point at all. What about babies who are born severely deformed, what about conjoined twins? Some people are born totally covered in thick, coarse hair. They are not animals, they are people. It could be argued that since they do not look as a human should look that they are not really children either. Of course, that is a callous and ridiculous form of reasoning, but if ever there is a person alive that is not recognizable as a person, you can bet we could fall back of genetic DNA testing and determine their species. Appearance doesn’t make people any less of a person.

      At 5 weeks, a baby has a heartbeat. (Typically this is usually when women realize they are “late” and take a test. Though some may do it at 4 weeks, it is usually not as accurate if done before then. It is still a baby, just when testing is most accurate, it already has a heartbeat, so it is most definitely alive.

      by 6 weeks, the baby’s brain is forming.

      By 8 weeks, when I lost my baby, he or she has arms and legs, and has begun to develop facial features.

      I don’t know when you lost your baby to miscarriage, but I do know that from the time a pregnancy begins, the gender and physical characteristics of a baby are already very much a part of their DNA. Its own SEPARATE DNA, which consists of various genes collected from you and the father. This “cluster of cells” is not YOUR “cluster”, but its own being.

    • JollyJuggler

      November 9, 2013 at 1:00 am

      I can’t believe how many DUMB people there are they have bought the whole “bunch of cells” crap. Before a pregnancy test will even turn positive the growing human child is more than a clump of cells. Pick up a science journal with some credibility! A 20 year old is not like a 60 year old because their bodies are in different stages of development – still human – still people. The person exists from conception – that is when those “clump of cells”become a new, unique, human being with its own DNA. Its not waiting to become human it is human, just in an earlier state of development. It is a process that begins at conception
      and ends at death.

    • Sylvie Shene

      November 10, 2013 at 1:09 pm

      Jolly your ignorance is beyond words. No one can use my body against my wishes and that goes for fertilize eggs and fetuses. Then a corpse have more rights then women, because we cannot take the organs of a corpse to save the life of another, unless the person gave permission before they died, so the same goes for the unborn if I am not willing to donate my body to give life. You cannot take the rights away of a living breathing human being to protect someone that doesn’t exist. You just a programed robot going around spreading the lies fed into you by your religion or cult.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 7:02 pm

      Wait, what? Did you just say we don’t exist when we’re in our mother’s wombs? Did you really just say that?

      Did you just compare us in our mother’s womb to a dead body? Really?
      Pro aborts cannot be that ignorant and anti-science…
      You just cannot be…

      Ok, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt… if you can cite even one biology embryology physiology anatomy text that says we don’t exist in the womb. Just one.. I’m not asking much.. just one.

      Sounds like you’re the programmed robot going around spreading lies.

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:22 pm

      Did you know that the first anatomical part to develop in an embryo is the anus? For a while we are all disembodied assholes, just floating about.

      Some people don’t go much further than that.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 11:32 pm

      Yes, indeed, some people never do get past that stage.

    • heather

      November 14, 2013 at 3:21 pm

      where on Earth did you get that nugget of wisdom…? enlighten me please.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 9:37 am

      Do you not know how pregnancy works? If pregnancy/childbirth robbed you of your organs, my grandmother wouldn’t have had any left after she was done with 10 children. My own mother would’ve been pretty scant in the organ department, as well, after 8 pregnancies herself.

      You people have the gall to call us “anti-science”…I swear…

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:21 pm

      Are we taking zygote, blastocyst, or embryo? Because none of those even remotely resemble a fetus, which only begins to resemble a child in the later stages.

      Yes, it’s organic matter. Yes, it has the possibility of life. But it is not life at that stage. If it cannot sustain itself outside of the womb, it is not life. I’m sorry.

      Again, not pro-abortion. Just anti-telling other women what to do with their bodies.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 9:35 am

      “Are we taking zygote, blastocyst, or embryo? Because none of those even remotely resemble a fetus, which only begins to resemble a child in the later stages.”

      Thank goodness we have the technology not to merely operate based on what things appear to be to us at any given time, but the actual facts of the matter like genetics and life processes on a cellular level. Are you aware that most if not all placental mammals have a fetal stage, and that “fetus” is not merely a descriptor relating to human offspring, or a species in and of itself? And that the word “offspring” is synonymous with “child”, with no regard to stage of development?

      “Yes, it’s organic matter. Yes, it has the possibility of life. But it is not life at that stage. If it cannot sustain itself outside of the womb, it is not life. I’m sorry.”

      Your arbitrary (and incorrect) ideas of what constitutes life/living/a living organism are duly noted. And disregarded, as any pseudo-scientific nonsense should be.

      A living human organism in the embryonic/fetal stage of development is just that. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be medical terms like, “embryonic demise” or “fetal demise”, since something has to have been living to be deceased. Would you classify yourself as mere “organic matter”, or do you feel your status as an organism of the human species entitles you to some sort of basic protection of rights under the law? If the latter, why are you not willing to grant this same courtesy to other human organisms, regardless of where they happen to reside at any given stage of life?

    • AugustW

      November 11, 2013 at 10:03 am

      It’s interesting to me that you think I now have full legal rights to live….except in the case where a pregnancy will kill me.

      So I’m a whole person, except when I’m pregnant.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 10:07 am

      “…except in the case where a pregnancy will kill me.”

      I’m sorry, but where did I ever say that necessary early induction of labor to terminate pregnancy prematurely for preservation of a mother’s life was out of the question?

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 6:08 pm

      Early induction of labor on a non-viable fetus is, indeed, an abortion procedure. Didn’t you say that your forced-birth arguments were based in science? You have yet to exhibit any grasp of basic reproductive and developmental biology. Please, do educate yourself. You are making a fool out of yourself.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 2:00 pm

      “With THEIR bodies”. Yes, keep your body to yourself, and I’ll take your child please. I would love to have another child. Get over your self-centered stupidity and open your mind and use some actual logic.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 2:13 pm

      There are over 100k children currently in the US adoption system who have not been adopted.

      Black babies also go for 10k, while healthy white babies go for 30k and up.

      In addition to this, there are thousands of unwanted disabled children that were put into foster care because their parents could not afford to raise them.

      So, put your money where your mouth is and start adopting some of these kids.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 2:39 pm

      I would love to. The problem is I have no money. I don’t have a stable home to raise a second child in, or else I would be adopting right now. it is my plan in the future to adopt, in the meantime, I sponsor five children, Whenever I find out about a pregnant woman who is in a difficult situation, I try to help her out financially by buying her diapers and groceries. Whenever I find out about a need, I use what little money I have to try to help others.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 2:49 pm

      And I am a single mother, working her way out of student-loan debt and continuing her education despite having a 3 year old. I was alone throughout her pregnancy, and when her father finally was able to be in the picture, he left us both. I could have aborted, but murdering my offspring was not an option I would ever consider.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      The problem is I have no money. I don’t have a stable home to raise a second child in, or else I would be adopting right now

      so what. you would force a woman living on pennies a day to have a kid if she got pregnant

      why should I have any sympathy for you if you don’t give a shit about poor women

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 9:48 pm

      I am one of those poor women which is why I will not adopt at this present time. I took responsibility for having sex. That’s why I have a daughter. But I DID it. I didn’t whine, or complain. I got up off my ass, got a job, and went back to school. Now I’m almost debt free and then I will work to create my dream home, one where I hope to house those poor pregnant women who have no other place to go.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 10:01 pm

      1) you don’t speak for every poor woman on the planet

      2) I am happy for you, but not everyone will have the same opportunities to pull themselves out of a hole

      3) sometimes abortion *is* the responsbile thing ot do.

      Really though, I am sincerely happy that you have done so well.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 6:12 pm

      The problem is I have no money. I don’t have a stable home to raise a second child in, or else I would be adopting right now.

      WTF? So it’s inconvenient for you to adopt an unwanted, needy child? But other women aren’t allowed the same consideration? Pregnancy is not merely inconvenient, it’s lifestyel- and body-altering, as well as health- and life-threatening, but you won’t give them a pass. So why should you get a pass? Stop being such a hypocrite!

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 22, 2013 at 6:57 pm

      this this this

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 6:58 pm

      wait… was she just a bunch of cells when her heart was beating? When you saw her 10 fingers and 10 toes? Was she still a bunch of cells when she was sucking her thumb in your womb? When she was hiccuping? When she was kicking you? When she was listening to your voice?
      When does anyone cease being a “clump of cells” that’s what we all are really.

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:23 pm

      At the point of her doing all those terribly adorable things, she was beyond the point of a normal abortion anyway, so shut up.

      Loving my kid and supporting other women’s rights to their uteruses is not exclusive.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 11:47 pm

      Such rudeness!

      Tsk Tsk

      I though you people were supposed to be better than that?

      Well, no, not really… the horrible things that come out of the mouths (or typing) of pro aborts is..well.. typical..

      You’re actually quite tame and reasonable compared to most. It’s very rare that I find a pro abort who is rational and willing to have an honest discussion. Without ad hominems without name calling and without hyperbole and hysteria.

      And I hate to be the one to break this to you, but her heart was beating rapidly at 4 weeks. Just 4 weeks after you missed your first period. Think about that.
      The embryo has brainwaves by 6 weeks, 2 days.
      From 6 to 6½ weeks, the cerebral vesicles will double in size. Individualized brainwaves recorded via electroencephalogram or EEG, have been reported as early as 6 weeks, 2 days.
      Also by 7 weeks, cell groupings resembling taste buds appear on the tongue and hiccups begin. Nasal plugs are prominent at this time and will persist for another 6 weeks or so.
      Her little fingers and toes were fully formed 8-10 weeks your last period and her gorgeous face was full formed 10-11 weeks after your last period.

      Read a book on embryology.

      What abortion is normal?

      It’s not normal to inject poison into the beating heart of your child, have him or her sucked out of your womb, put in a biohazard bad and then dumped in the trash outside a clinic.

      That’s barbarism.

      Loving your kid and supporting the killing of other people’s kids is some pretty deep hypocrisy.

      Reminds me of scene of an episode from CBS’s The Good Wife titled Heart:
      Kate wants the insurance company to pay for an expensive heart operation to save the life of her unborn child… she and her husband are suing the insurance company to pay for said procedure.
      The insurance company’s lawyer puts Kate, the mom who was fighting for her unborn son to have a chance, on the stand.

      Lawyer: To save a life. That’s right. Because this is a life were talking about.

      Kate nods. Next, the lawyer talks about how Kate had spent the last five years lobbying for abortion rights.

      Lawyer: You spent years fighting to ensure that a fetus at this stage [holds up photo of Samuel Arnas] could be aborted legally.

      Kate: Fighting to ensure that there was a choice.

      Lawyer: And now that you’re the one with a fetus at 23 weeks, you argue that it should be considered a baby. In fact, it is a life worth saving. In fact, your baby deserves the most cutting-edge extreme life-saving measures possible.

      Kate: Yes [crying]. This is my child. Of course, he deserves anything.

      Lawyer: And you can live with that hypocrisy?

    • BJ Survivor

      November 21, 2013 at 4:17 pm

      OMG, rudeness! My virgin ears!

      Yeah, when your side stops shooting healthcare workers and bombing clinics, you might have some sort of point.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 21, 2013 at 9:23 pm

      OMG the pro abort doesn’t get sarcasm or mockery (among other things the pro abort doesn’t understand)

      Ya, maybe when you stop living in the 90’s (and Tiller the Killer in 2009) and start living in present your side can stop killing our side walk protesters, vandalizing our homes and destroying our displays we can talk.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 5:23 pm

      When has one of your sidewalk terrorists been executed by a pro-choicer with ties to prominent pro-choice groups? Enlighten me, please.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 22, 2013 at 6:49 pm

      Citations needed.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 21, 2013 at 1:42 am

      Princess, if you think you’re fooling anyone with your facile grasp of science and basic logic, you are sadly mistaken. I can smell a fundie catholic from a mile away.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 21, 2013 at 4:17 am

      This from the typical angry bitter illogical judgmental pro abort….with apparently no sense of smell.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 6:13 pm

      You might want to stop upvoting the religious posts if you want to be taken seriously as an atheist. Again, you’re not fooling anyone. You are a caricature.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      December 3, 2013 at 4:44 am

      I’m actually more of an agnostic with some pagan outlooks.
      I’m just not a big fan of organized religion.

      Interesting that you think that just because I’m a secular pro lifer that I’m not allowed to support religious pro lifers.
      Not very logical
      Does that mean that you wouldn’t show support for a religious pro abort?

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 1:56 pm

      Isn’t that what you are trying to do? Force your opinions on others?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 2:12 pm

      What YOU are trying to do is take away a woman’s freedom to not be a broodmare.

    • ranchmom1

      November 7, 2013 at 10:41 am

      And if you had killed that child, she would not exist. She never existed before, and never would again. Think about that the next time she comes running up to you and grabs you while her whole face lights up, shouting “MOMMY!” You could have wiped.her.out before she ever got the chance to draw breath. The only difference between your daughter at 10 weeks’ gestation and now is time and location.

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:24 pm

      I couldn’t have killed a child because a) murder is a legal term and does not apply to abortion and b) “child” is not the same thing as “fetus”.

      And fuck you and your self righteousness. You know nothing about my child, or me, clearly.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 10:01 am

      I’ll give you “a.)”, we really should be using a more technical term like “homicide”. However:

      “b) ‘child’ is not the same thing as ‘fetus’.”

      off·spring
      ˈôfˌspriNG,ˈäf-/
      noun
      1.
      a person’s child or children.

      fe·tus
      ˈfētəs/
      noun
      1.
      an unborn *OFFSPRING*[<-emphasis mine] of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 6, 2013 at 4:22 pm

      My son was 9lbs 6oz, and deserved a right to live at every stage of his life, even though he was big. My comfort < his life.

    • ranchmom1

      November 7, 2013 at 10:38 am

      Amen to that.

    • JollyJuggler

      November 9, 2013 at 12:47 am

      Lucky you Emily! I have six children and the lightest at birth was 9 pound 4 ounces – the heaviest was 11 pound 3 ounces. No diabetes and all natural deliveries. You can’t anticipate how big a baby is going grow before it is born. What we do know is that from conception a separate human life exists. Regardless of how it came to be or what is apparently “wrong with it”. Define normal and then show me 5 people that fit the bill! Abortion is the murder of a human life – not the mothers life – so therefore it can not be “her body”. Women should have the right to choose maternity through financially free, side effect free, and effective contraception. Abortion is murder and murder should never be allowed or excused – for any reason! I am amazed that the pro choice crowd,, who usually claim to be great parents, can talk about the murder of their own child, or a friends, or a strangers, as though they were talking about having a thorn removed. Your talking about killing a person – an innocent person! What the hell is wrong with your intellect!

    • Sylvie

      November 10, 2013 at 12:41 pm

      A fertilized egg is not a human life, it has the potential to be, but most fertilized eggs no matter what anyone says never make it into a human being, so no abortion is not murder. Keep your beliefs to yourself and stop preaching to others. As Dr. Alice Miller says in her book “Breaking Down the Wall of Silence: The Liberating Experience of Facing Painful Truth” ” To force the role of a mother on a woman who does not wish to be mother is an offense not just against her, but against the whole human community, because the child she brings into the world is likely to take criminal revenge for its birth, as do the many (mis)leaders threatening our lives. All wars we ever had were the deeds of once unwanted, heinously mistreated children. It is the right to lived life that we must protect wherever and whenever it is threatened. And it should never be sacrificed to an abstract idea.

      Not everyone is capable of thinking in real, concrete terms. Many seek refuge in religious beliefs. In their weakness, they place their trust in “relics,” awaiting salvation at the hands of one stronger than themselves. Anyone who claims to be a strong and knowledgeable authority for such people, and to be acting on their behalf, has the duty to be conscious of the appropriate facts. If they aren’t, if they ignore or neglect that duty, clamming instead that their palpable lack of information and their abstract conceptions of “life” are sanctioned by God and practiced in the name of humanity, they are acting against life, by misusing the weakness and trust of the faithful and dangerously confusing them. The injunction against abortion goes even further: Consciously or unconsciously, it represents support for cruelty against children and active complicity in the creation of unwanted existences, existences that can easily become a liability for the community at large.

      When I see the passion with which Catholic priests – men childless by choice – fight against abortion, I can’t help asking what it is that motivates them. Is it a desire to prove that unlived life, as perhaps their own destinies suggest, is more important and more valuable than lived life? Was that, perhaps, how the parents of those passionately committed to stopping abortion thought, though they expressed it in different ways? Or is it a case of seeing to it that others share the same fate as oneself? Both are possible. Both are dangerous, when people are driven to blind and destructive actions by the dead hand of their own repression.

      It is, in fact, not surprising to find that those who are both victims and apologist for the use of violence and severity against children are often those who most passionately proclaim their love of the unborn child, i.e., the kernel of life. Abortion can, indeed, be seen as the most powerful symbol of the psychic annihilation and mutilation practiced since time immemorial on children. But to combat this evil merely at the symbolic level deflects us from the reality we should not evade for a moment longer: the reality of the abused and humiliated child, which, as a result of its disavowed and unresolved injuries, will insidiously become, either openly or aided by hypocrisy, a danger to society.

      It is above all the children already born that have a right to life – a right to coexistence with adults in a world in which, with or without the help of the church, violence against children has been unequivocally outlawed. Until such legislation exists, talk of “the right to life” remains not only a mockery of humanity but a contribution to its destruction.”

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 4:53 pm

      A fertilized egg is not a human life, it has the potential to be, but most fertilized eggs no matter what anyone says never make it into a human being, so no abortion is not murder.

      “I am evicting the human from the incubator.”
      Abortionist Michael Weiner, MD, Family Planning Associates [as he performed an abortion]

      “I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.”
      –Leroy Carhart, testifying under oath in 1997 about what he does to facilitate abortion, Asheville Tribune.

      “I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.”
      –Judith Arcana, abortion activist, at a London seminar, October 1999–

      “One of the facts of abortion is that women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. It is a form of killing, you’re ending a life.”
      –Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, “An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About Procedure,” New York Times, (February 26, 1997)

      “Even a fetus lying there dead doesn’t convey the horror that one experiences seeing a baby moving its arms and legs, opening its mouth, sucking its thumb, and then thinking, gosh, somebody wants to, you know… It looks so vital. It has changed my view. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.”
      –Dr. Stuart Campbell, former abortionist, referring to advances in ultrasound imaging

      You were saying?

      “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
      “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
      Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

      “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

      Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p.

      “The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.”

      In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005.

      “Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”
      [Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

      Sorry… but these are taken from embryology and medical texts..
      How do you know more about this than other scientists who write these texts that we then study at the university level?

      It seems to me that it’s your belief that a fertilized egg is not a human being. But the consensus in the scientific community overwhelmingly disagrees with you.

      To force the role of a mother on a woman who does not wish to be mother is an offense not just against her, but against the whole human community, because the child she brings into the world is likely to take criminal revenge for its birth, as do the many (mis)leaders threatening our lives.

      It’s more cruel to force death on an innocent human life. There is adoption. Pregnancy is 9 months, death is forever.

      Forever.

      By the time most women find out they are pregnant, we are more than a “fertilized egg”.. we have a beating heart, 10 toes, 10 fingers. By week 10-11 we have faces.

      Yes, by week 10-11, your fetus has a face.

      http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit4.php

      These are all scientific facts. No one’s religion. Let’s try to keep religion out of this debate. There are over 6 million of us agnostic and atheist pro lifers. It’s a bit insulting when pro aborts keep bringing up someone’s god.
      I often find that most pro aborts have the need to inject religion into this debate when it really just doesn’t belong there.

      http://www.secularprolife.org

      It is, in fact, not surprising to find that those who are both victims and apologist for the use of violence and severity against children are often those who most passionately proclaim their love of the unborn child,

      Do you have any empirical, unequivocal facts and sources for this claim? Is there perhaps a study to which you could link me? Or are we just going by your feelings here again?

      “…In one day I walk to the abortion clinic with 10 or 12 or 13 women waiting and I realized I cannot do anymore abortions. I felt uncomfortable doing it, I felt disgusted at myself. I realized now that I’d started doing second trimester abortions and not only did I I see a little tissue coming out , I saw fetal parts, I saw babies coming out, and I felt that I was so uncomfortable at this point that I could not continue and I walked out of the clinic and left that clinic without doing the abortions and never entered the abortion clinic again.”—

      Former Abortionist: Dr. Arnold Halpern

      All wars we ever had were the deeds of once unwanted, heinously mistreated children. It is the right to lived life that we must protect wherever and whenever it is threatened.

      Source please?

      Hitler’s mother actually adored him and after his father’s death was even more indulgent towards him. Yes he had some minor conflict with his father and they moved around a lot before 1903 when his father died.… but the bond between mother and son was unbreakable.

      See Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich by William L Shirer. 1st chapter. Sorry.. I can’t remember what pages they were exactly. (It’s really really good read)
      He even references his relationship with his mother in Mein Kampf, but I don’t recommend that… even if you can read it in it’s native German, as I did, it’s a very dry read… blech..

      Joseph Djugashvili’s (Stalin’s) mother, adored him (Stalin) too… the man he thought to be his father wasn’t so great though..he was a drunk. But his mom made sure to give him everything she could afford (and sometimes by any means possible, if you know what I mean *wink wink*)

      Read: Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore….this one’s a great read as well… took me all of 3 days.

      Could. Not. Put. It. Down.

      Do you know how horrible Napoleon’s childhood was?
      For a wealthy aristocrat, it was actually pretty exciting and fascinating, His parents adored him.

      “Napoléone’s parents were very considerate towards their children. As a young child Napoléone and Giuseppe were given an undecorated room in their house in which they could play. They could wrestle, draw on the walls, and play games to their hearts’ desire. Napoléone also received a nickname as a child, Rabulione, which means “he who meddles in everything.”

      http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/c_youth.html

      Not too familiar with Kaiser Wilhelm, perhaps you could help me on that one.. no where in The Guns of August does it really discuss his childhood… just that he was super jealous of his cousin, the King of England.

      Even Lenin was loved by his parents
      http://www.biography.com/people/vladimir-lenin-9379007

      I’m sure I’m missing many others but I’m doing much of this off the top of my head sans a few reference sites.

      It is above all the children already born that have a right to life – a right to coexistence with adults in a world in which, with or without the help of the church

      Who needs the help of any church really?

      Of course children who are born have the right to life…who has ever disputed that? We need to put an end to all senseless violence starting with abortion…as it’s one of the most heinous crimes against humanity there is (that part is my opinion)

      “Tearing a developed fetus apart, limb by limb, is an act of depravity that society should not permit.We cannot afford such a devaluation of human life, nor the desensitization of medical personnel it requires. This is not based on what the fetus might feel but on what we should feel in watching an exquisite, partly formed human being being dismembered.”

      –Former Abortionist: Dr. George Flesh–

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:07 pm

      You do realize there is a difference between a fertilized egg and a fetus, right?

      And just quoting people doesn’t prove anything either way. If it did, I’m sure I could find plenty of quotes pointing out that blastocysts aren’t “life” and that would be that.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 11:22 pm

      I’m quoting abortionists themselves.
      And embryology and biology text books
      I highly doubt you’d find any credible scientific text that would state a blastocyst isn’t human life.
      But by all means please try
      In fact I challenge you to find one credible scientific text that states your opinion. Just one.
      If you do.. let me know.
      If the people who actually kill these babies can admit that they are killing babies, what makes you so special?
      Of course, pro aborts don’t need science or reason or logic when it disagrees with their feeeeelings.

      Yes of course there is a difference between a fertilized egg and a fetus… just like there is a difference between a toddler and a teenager.
      They are all stages of human development. At no point in our lives are we non-human.
      Science does not support that. Neither does logic or reason.

      At any rate it’s a moot point as most women find out they are pregnant at week 3 to 4 when we are no longer fertilized eggs or blastocysts but are actually embryos with a beating heart developing brain and other body parts

    • fiona64

      December 3, 2013 at 5:24 pm

      A blastocyst is not a person. It’s human life in the sense that your fingernails are human life.

      Go get an education, sweetie. I doubt it will hurt you much.

    • JP cline

      November 11, 2013 at 3:49 am

      You’re sumation only gives you 5 days to be on target here and after that you would be screwed (again) A Blastocyst is created within 5 days after fertilization and after that short period of 5 days we are talking about a cellular human life form, or life itself ….the real question here should be are women smart enough to catch and contain a blastocyst before it obtains this property called becoming a living organism ? Otherwise known in laymans terms and in the same context as “are sexual partners too stupid to use a contraceptive or a prophylactic? ” Blastocysts are the 5 day clock to intervening on life after that its a murder 😉

    • Lane

      November 13, 2013 at 2:29 pm

      …and yet scientists would pee their pants if the found a single-celled ameba on Mars and would claim the found life there. So an ameba is “life” but a developing human is not? You’re not very smart, are you?

    • Linda

      November 14, 2013 at 7:11 pm

      There’s NO SUCH THING in science as a “fertilized egg”. That is an invented term made up by pro-aborts who refuse to acknowledge scientific reality. A woman’s human egg which has been fertilized by a man’s sperm is NOT a “fertilized egg”, but, in union with the male’s sperm is now a NEWLY-CONCEIVED HUMAN BEING, THE EXACT SAME HUMAN BEING THAT HE OR SHE WILL BE THROUGHOUT HIS OR HER ENTIRE LIFE. Biology 101.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 12:42 pm

      I have found with all pro-abortion/pro-choice/anti-life arguments the inherent flaw that the “child” will grow up to be unwanted and unloved. As my mother would say “Who says life is fair?”. If people don’t want to become parents then maybe they should keep their privates in their own pants.

    • Dmember

      November 17, 2013 at 11:32 pm

      Well AugustW….at least we all know that if you’re going in for an abortion, by that time your baby is a baby, because they don’t abort blastocysts. If you’re pregnant, you are a mother of a baby whom you’ve hired someone to kill. Everybody knows it.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:23 am

      91% of abortions are before 13 weeks

      61% are before 9 weeks

      This is what a typical abortion looks like:

      http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls6w7phG8f1qi68z9.jpg

      You are suggesting that a woman should spend life in prison for ejecting that clump of cells from her body.

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 11:05 am

      13 weeks of what….LIFE? Your picture….well, you need to know the difference between a developing human being and vomit. But I’ve seen worse deceptions from other mothers who can’t live with having killed their kids.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:00 pm

      A clump of tissue is not a child.

    • Reality

      December 3, 2013 at 10:58 am

      A fertilized egg is not a human life. Science has proven that a fetus has no consciousness, cannot think or feel pain until 24 weeks gestation. This is why 24 weeks is the absolute legal limit for abortion. Look it up, type in “when does a fetus become conscious?”. The needs of a thing that can’t think or feel and is only alive as an extension of its host, should not be considered as important as mother, who can think and and feel and is truly alive.

    • DianaG2

      December 3, 2013 at 7:53 pm

      Thanks, Princess.

      I hope you give me permission to print this up?

    • JP cline

      November 11, 2013 at 3:39 am

      I’ve read volumes of “full of shit” before ,and had to digest the nuanced lies therin, but I believe you just rewrote that book right here just now . Take solace and smile though , YOUR OWN MOTHER CHOSE FOR LIFE ! Aren’t you the lucky one ? 😉

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 5:58 pm

      My mother is vehemently pro-choice and had me and each of her 4 children because she wanted to, not because she felt forced to by her religion or her family. She had an abortion when she found herself pregnant, abandoned by my sperm donor, and left with the responsibility of feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating 4 young children. She has worked for abortion providers and helped me procure an abortion from a doctor that she has worked for, so that I didn’t have to navigate a gauntlet of bible-babbling lunatics to exercise my right to make my own medical decisions.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 22, 2013 at 6:56 pm

      Exactly.

      CHOICE.

      Was not forced.

      Every child should be wanted.

    • Lane

      November 13, 2013 at 2:26 pm

      If the stopping of the heart defines “death” wouldn’t the beginning of the heart define “life?”

    • Kay_Sue

      November 14, 2013 at 11:24 am

      Except this isn’t necessarily true. There are plenty of cases where the heart stops and the human being isn’t dead and is revived…

    • Kat

      November 15, 2013 at 1:45 am

      Umm, might I just make a point to say that the Baptists fight against abortion and they do have children. If this is going to turn into a religious debate then perchance it would be best to choose your words wisely. I am baptist and I find offense in your precious statements as it is not shoving an unwanted child upon someone. It’s just doing what’s right. You choose whether or not to accept the responsibility that comes with intercourse. A child is a child and if you cannot care for it the other options such as adoption are available. So any child with their right to love and live is a mockery? It would be wise to clarify otherwise you seem almost against children in general. My point is that your word choice is off and it could be worded differently. Besides, the only reason society had mentally disturbed people is because they are people who haven’t sought help with inner turmoil. We already heavily medicate people anyways, whose to say that there are other factors involved? Before you make up your mind to disregard me completely please let me ask you something. Have you ever tried to put yourself in the other side of the argument

    • Arekushieru

      November 27, 2013 at 6:40 am

      If not, why would she? Would you ask her to do the same if it was a rapist? No? Then, hypocrite.

      A child is born.

      Now your victim-blaming those with mental illnesses? Excuse me? *I* have a mental illness. Tyvfm.

      A fetus has the SAME right to life that everyone else has, WITH abortion legal. YOU want to give a fetus MORE of a right to live.

      I have a friend who’s Baptist and Pro-Choice. Your point is?

      Yes, forcing a woman to gestate IS shoving an unwanted child on someone. Whether that be the foster care system, adoptive parents who only want a healthy, white, newborn OR the woman, herself. DERP.

      Adoption deals with an unwanted child, not an unwanted pregnancy. Oops.

      Abortion IS being responsible. By YOUR logic, treating HIV after having intercourse is irresponsible. Huh? Even if a couple has sex on the woman’s most fertile days of the year, without contraception of any kind, pregnancy will only occur 30% of the time and, of those that aren’t aborted, only 1/3 will reach full term. Besides, pregnancy isn’t a responsibility of intercourse. If it WERE, men AND women and all other animals would get pregnant all the time, every time they had sex. Oops.

    • tsara

      December 3, 2013 at 12:16 am

      “Besides, the only reason society had mentally disturbed people is because they are people who haven’t sought help with inner turmoil.”
      No.

    • fiona64

      December 3, 2013 at 5:27 pm

      You choose whether or not to accept the responsibility that comes with intercourse.

      Consent to intercourse is not consent to pregnancy.

    • Dmember

      November 17, 2013 at 11:18 pm

      Sylvie, did you say all wars are fought by angry babies? Are you nuts? I think it’s time for you to take your medicine. lol

    • Arekushieru

      November 27, 2013 at 6:42 am

      MORE ableism? It’s really funny (except not) that antis try to PRETEND that they’re oh-so-concerned about women, but then fail to realize that comments like these expose their real agenda. Oops.

    • tsara

      December 3, 2013 at 12:17 am

      There’s a fuckin’ ridiculous amount of ableism here.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 3, 2013 at 12:32 am

      Now now tsara, don’t be all mean and mis-characterize the people here!

      They really are nice, once you get past the slut-shaming. Oh, there is a lot of slut-shaming.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 27, 2013 at 9:51 am

      Why do you make fun of the mentally disabled?

      And you pretend to be a compassionate person

      You’re a despicable piece of shit.

    • Argusawakened

      November 19, 2013 at 6:03 pm

      Really? Is your side really still trying to use biology in its argument? Because, as we have seen over the past 30 years, medical technology has proven beyond a doubt that this “mass of fetal tissue” is a little human being, identifiable as such anatomically as soon as 12 weeks, with arms, legs, eyes, heartbeat, etc. And you guys thought you were so smart back in the 70s and 80s! Science has, and will continue to, show the amazing design of God’s creation. Only the blind don’t see it. I’ll pray for you, that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes. It’s an amazing world we have, when you look at it with open eyes.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 21, 2013 at 1:27 am

      So tell me, Argusawakened, do you hold funerals for your or your partner’s (if you are male) used feminine hygiene products? After all, if you are sexually active, then her body could very well be aborting a miscroscopic human. And we generally hold funerals for our dead, even for indigents. So, to follow your own logic that a microscopic cluster of cells is a person, same as a newborn or child or adult, then you would be mourning those potential deaths, right? Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of human development knows that anywhere from 30% to 70% of fertilized eggs, blastocysts, and embryos either fail to implant or fail to progress and are washed away during menstruation. I mean, since you claim to use “science” in your inane arguments, right?

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 22, 2013 at 3:44 pm

      BJ, I’m afraid you may have missed the essence of the pro-life position. We pro-life people are neither alarmed nor unduly upset over the loss of human life you have described here. What we are upset about is the deliberate homicide of children by their parents and abortion provider, whether you call the child an embryo, a fetus, a neo-nate, infant, little boy or girl, or adolescent. In addition, you may also include everybody else. You may also add: we pro-life folks are, indeed, pro-choice in the fact that we want the CHOICE not to have to pay for the homicide. Let’s start with that.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 5:17 pm

      Since you don’t “pay for the homicide,” due to the Hyde Amendment, then you have no horse in this race, pantysniffer.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 5:27 pm

      I paid (well, my mother paid), for my abortion, so it is and was never any of your concern.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 5:53 pm

      We pro-life people are neither alarmed nor unduly upset over the loss of human life you have described here. What we are upset about is the
      deliberate homicide of children by their parents and abortion provider

      This makes no sense if, as you pantysniffers claim, zygotes are fully-formed people. If there was an epidemic that killed off or maimed born, sentient people to an vastly lesser extent than normal reproductive biology kills off zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, there would be a vociferous and concerted effort to find the cause and cure the affliction. Since you don’t actually care, then that tells me there is some other reason you oppose abortion rights.

      It’s not hard to figure out that the reason is misogyny, since everything forced-birthers do at the legislative level – cut funding for food stamps, WIC, education, AFDC, healthcare, contraception, et cetera, ad nauseum – is testament to that fact.

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 22, 2013 at 7:50 pm

      BJ, From your posts, I infer that you have had a life with more than its share of pain and sorrow. Hurt and anger characterize so much of what you have written. I do not wish, by my posts, to add to your torment, so I shall cease. My hope is that you will come to some peace.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 22, 2013 at 7:52 pm

      Why not answering her questions?

      And mine.

      How much jail time should women do for procuring an abortion?

      Should rape victims be forced to bear every pregnancy that is forced upon them?

      How about little girls who are raped and pregnant? 12 year olds etc.? 8 year olds?

      You think that women should be forced to ‘take responsiblity’ for their actions by giving birth – even if it maims them and causes untold psychological pain. So, why not men? Shouldn’t men also be forced to preserve fetal life through the use of their bodily tissues? Even if it maims them?

    • BJ Survivor

      November 24, 2013 at 11:07 am

      Wow, so pushing back against the intrusive bullshit of forced-birthers such as yourself means that I’m generally an angry person who’s had a bad life? Yes, the intrusive pantysniffing and hypocrisy of forced-birthers does make me angry. I’m certain you, too, would be pretty pissed off at people who are trying to make your most personal life and medical decisions for you.

      So, you can’t or won’t answer the questions or refute the assertions, can you?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 22, 2013 at 6:49 pm

      Since you consider abortion to be murder two questions:

      1) should rape victims be allowed to abort their pregnancies

      2) how much jail time should a woman receive for aborting a pregnancy

    • fiona64

      December 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm

      What we are upset about is the deliberate homicide of children by their parents

      If you know of parents who are killing their children, please contact law enforcement at once.

      You may also add: we pro-life folks are, indeed, pro-choice in the fact
      that we want the CHOICE not to have to pay for the homicide. Let’s start
      with that.

      No tax dollars pay for abortions, period. Look up the Hyde Amendment. Let’s start with *that.*

    • Arekushieru

      November 25, 2013 at 9:09 am

      A separate human life? Irrelevant. The following simply deals with the logical outcomes of this very argument made by the antis, nothing more, nothing less: So is a rapist. But you never hear antis make THAT argument for rapists, INDISPUTABLE persons and separate human lives. After all, if that was ALL that antis believed counted towards making abortion wrong and illegal, they WOULD apply the SAME argument to rapists and rape victims, thereby making rape legal. Therefore, antis, themselves, MUST realize that whether a fetus is a separate human life or not is irrelevant. DERP; If a fetus is separate, it would survive removal from the uterus, btw. And granting a fetus superior rights because it’s a separate human life, denies a woman the same opportunity for the same reason. Hypocrisy.

      How did we go from forcing the ‘role’ of pregnancy and childbirth on a woman to the strawman of normal, anyways? Oh, right, I forgot, I’m talking to an anti.

      Murder IS illegal killing with malice aforethought. Therefore, abortion fits NONE of the four requirements for murder. Oops. For someone who has been pregnant, you certainly seem to know very little about what pregnancy entails. Nidation, endometrium, umbilical cord, amniotic sac, apposition, adhesion, chorioallantois, decidual plate, chorion frondosum and placenta. …I’ll wait while you Google. …So, now, as you may have noticed, NONE of those are terms referring to the fetus. Since abortion is the termination of a *pregnancy*, it is now impossible to see how abortion does NOT involve a woman’s body, which you may have also noticed while Googling these terms. HERP DERP. Besides, the fact that a fetus dies due to incompatibility with life upon separation from the uterus, is NOT the woman’s responsibility. If you still claim it IS, you must either then accept that all other people must take similar responsibilities for biological processes, OR attempt to explain why a woman is the ONLY exception without using sexist distinctions. Since it’s impossible, we will all see antis for what they really are.

      Abortion involves neither babies, children (well, unless the pregnant individual is a child, for that, Google Lina Medina) mothers (unless, as most women who have abortions do, she has existing children, already) nor fetal ‘persons’.

      Forced gestation is equivalent to rape. And should never be allowed or excused – for any reason! Which is why I’M so amazed at the Pro-‘Life’ crowd.

      If my mother had not had an abortion, my brother would not be here, which means that you believe my brother does not have the right to exist at all costs that you would have us believe is the right of ALL fetuses. Logic implosion, much?

      A fetus can be neither innocent nor guilty. Unless it has intent. But, if it has intent, it can be convicted of a crime, since conception is a process mostly directed by… you guessed it… the fetus! But, again, I forget that you antis want so desperately to make it a person, of which the capacity for intent is a usual trait. Perhaps we have been kind to antis by denying them the ability to declare fetuses persons. Have you never thought of that?

      What the hell is wrong with YOUR intellect!

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 25, 2013 at 2:28 pm

      And in many cases the rapist does less damage to a woman’s body than 9 months of gestation + childbirth.

      Yet no one will complain if you bash the rapist’s skull in.

    • Arekushieru

      November 27, 2013 at 6:54 am

      Of course, if we continue with their logic that the right to life is the all-important right, that is…. If it’s so important that it trumps all other rights, then the converse holds true, too, after all. Unless something infringes on someone else’ right to life, no one has the right to defend themselves from a personal invasion, and then, obviously, only with lesser force. But, I guess the commenter who marked this comment of yours down must not like being faced with their own ignorance, either!

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 26, 2013 at 1:14 pm

      http://praxeology.net/RTL-Abortion.htm

      He makes the same point you do, about rape.

      And he is right in this: If the pain involved in childbirth were induced by other means, it would generally be recognized as a form of torture, and a nation that required women to undergo it would be found in violation of Article V of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    • Arekushieru

      November 27, 2013 at 6:43 am

      Wow, the person who marked your comment down must really like the idea of torturing women and be a coward for not being willing to show their face and outline WHY they disagree with that!

    • Women Matter

      November 10, 2013 at 8:01 pm

      Actually your life matters, it matters a whole lot, your life as a woman is the most important thing in the world. Women rock, women are beautiful and women are important. Your life takes first billing always and forever. Whoever taught you that you come second was wrong.

    • JP cline

      November 11, 2013 at 4:01 am

      ever hear of a hysterectomy ? it’s a 2 day stay in a hospital which means you won’t have to worry about making a choice ever again …you won’t have to doubt yourself the next time you get horny and need some relief , you won’t have to see an abortionist and certainly you won’t be procreating empty self serving people such as yourself ..try it , you might like it ..it relives a Woman of all the pain and responsibility of being a Woman , Wife and Mother …

    • Ariela

      November 12, 2013 at 8:57 am

      I’d be happy for my taxes to pay for peoples sterilization proceures but never for their abortions.

    • Kay_Sue

      November 14, 2013 at 11:27 am

      There are very many women that report a strong unwillingness for doctors to perform tubal litigation when they request it until they’ve had a certain number of children or reached a certain age. I know of a good many childfree women that would appreciate better access to sterilization.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 12:46 pm

      Then we should fight for than instead of unrestricted abortion access. Talk about misdirected emotions. Take up your “Women have a choice” to the doctor and demand a hysterectomy. Tell them that if they won’t bat an eyelid about destroying the life of an innocent child, why do they balk at taking out the parts necessary to create children?

    • Arekushieru

      November 27, 2013 at 5:01 am

      Oh, here comes the tone policing. And antis wonder why women get mad? WTF???

      A fetus is neither a child nor innocent nor guilty. Now, if you want to talk about emotional rhetoric that actually harms PEOPLE, there’s some right THERE for ya, made BY you. But we’ll never see ya tone police YOURSELF, now, will we? Oops?

      And the reason they balk is BECAUSE of people like you. If women can’t control their own bodies just like anyone else may do, as you antis like to claim, then it’s very EASY for doctors to turn around and say the same thing about women, THEMSELVES, that they can’t control their own lives and decisions, so someone must make those decisions FOR them. You indicated this, yourself, after all (another example of an anti who can’t follow things to their logical conclusion, I guess…), when you referred to the doctors who perform abortions as ‘destroying’ the life of a ‘child’. Specifically, you implied that women are somehow dupes of the ‘evil’ ‘abortionist’ who convinces them that fetuses are not the children/human beings they ‘clearly’ are, which somehow magically makes them so precious that any act to separate them from the uterus, qualifies as ‘destruction’. Does that not imply that you think women should have their decisions made by the ‘good’ doctors (who are actually all the same, because both those who provide abortions or pregnancy, labour and delivery care, ARE… ob/gyns. Oops) in case it might hurt their little lady brains, or that you think that pregnancy is the most important thing in the world that a woman can ever do with her life, especially when all of that is also used in conjunction with the word ‘create’? Gee, I wonder what doctor under THOSE conditions would even THINK about providing hysterectomies to women? So, look to yourself, next time, HYPOCRITE.

      Finally, in your talk about misdirected emotions, you forgot the one thing YOU could do. And ESPECIALLY so, since YOU are the ones talking about erasure of rights on TOP of trying to impose your own values and morals on others, NOT us. And that is to adopt the children that you force to be born OR find a way to gestate a fetus that DOESN’T require the use of someone else’ body if they don’t want it. In all you antis talk of responsibility, you sure like to talk the talk but not walk the walk, dontcha?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 27, 2013 at 9:46 am

      so , when are you going to adopt and gestate an ivf embryo?

      or are you too selfish?

    • Tony Alongi

      November 13, 2013 at 1:54 pm

      In a word, a woman must remove a natural part of herself in order to be fully woman and so that the misogynists of the world can view women as objects of sex without the responsibility aspect. Yeah, great logic there.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 12:48 pm

      How is that different than murdering a child. A woman must remove something to keep herself from being a responsible mother. I put the word responsible in there because a woman who is pregnant is already a mother. When she uses abortion as birth control, all she is doing is keeping herself as an object of sexual gratification. She debases herself but not allowing herself to become truly powerful. The most powerful thing a woman can do is become a mother. She can influence an entire generation through her children. She can exhibit self-sacrificing love, something that many normal people admire.

    • Kay_Sue

      November 18, 2013 at 2:12 pm

      I entirely disagree with this sentiment.

      The most powerful thing a woman can do is claim her right to make her own decisions about her life and her body. Period. It is not your business. It is not my business. It is no one’s business but the woman and her doctor’s. Period.

      Relegating the power of a woman to her ability to conceive and carry a child is disgusting and misogynistic. Does that mean women who are unable to conceive are unable to be powerful women? What about women that make a choice not to have children?

      Being a mother makes you no more powerful as a woman. It is a beautiful thing, but still a highly personal one. Allowing women the right to make their own decisions is empowering.

    • Gecks

      November 23, 2013 at 3:54 am

      Is it not my business if people are being shot and killed in the alley next to me? Should I just close the blinds rather than attempt positive change in my community? This is what abortion is. Children die across the way and we just close the blinds.

    • Kay_Sue

      November 23, 2013 at 4:28 pm

      There are living, breathing, born children suffering and dying in our country every day and we all look the other way. Don’t use that tired line to justify trying to control the bodies and actions of others.

    • Kay_Sue

      November 14, 2013 at 11:25 am

      And also can have massive health implications in the long run, is a major hospital stay…etc, etc. And having an abortion does not mean a woman won’t have children later on. It means in that single moment, she decides that this is not right for her. Period.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 12:47 pm

      Many women suffer from sterilization due to their abortion, they have a miscarriage because the uterine tissue was damaged during the abortion, or they die in labor due to complications from a previous abortion.

    • Kay_Sue

      November 17, 2013 at 2:54 pm

      Which is why it should be a decision between a woman and her doctor. Not a woman and society and everyone else that wants to comment.

      Not to mention the overwhelming number of women that experience no negative side effects whatsoever.

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 12:08 am

      Kay_Sue, don’t you mean it’s a decision between a “mother” and her doctor? Abortionists are always for abortion, so they won’t be hard to convince.

      By the way, the overwhelming number of mothers who have their babies killed suffer great emotional harm. The rest are just evil.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:22 am

      By the way, the overwhelming number of mothers who have their babies killed suffer great emotional harm.

      I thought you just told me that these women were cold blooded killers who deserve to spend life in jail for their crimes?

    • BJ Survivor

      November 21, 2013 at 1:35 am

      Both things are absolutely true! /cognitive dissonance for the win

    • Kay_Sue

      November 18, 2013 at 2:26 pm

      No, I don’t mean that. She isn’t a mother unless she wants to be; she is always a woman.

      There is no denying that there is a psychological impact from abortion, although there is no consensus on how deeply women are impacted. It’s yet another reason why the idea that women run out and get abortion willy-nilly is so preposterous. Very few women WANT to have an abortion–they make the decision that they feel they HAVE to, based on their personal experiences, values, and feelings.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 18, 2013 at 2:27 pm

      Just so you know , Dmember thinks women who abort should spend life in prison. Even if raped.

      And that women have abortions at 9 months for recreation.

    • Kay_Sue

      November 18, 2013 at 2:28 pm

      Thanks for the warning. I was getting the impression that I was talking to a brick wall, anyway.

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 10:11 pm

      Not that everyone experiences psychological effects that are more than a blip on the radar.
      And not that everyone physically capable of pregnancy is a woman (hi, genderqueer person with uterus here).
      Don’t mind me, just bored and catching up on this thread.

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 9:34 pm

      [citation needed]

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 12:04 am

      Kay_Sue, if a mother has 15 kids in the future, does that make up for the one she killed in that single moment? Would 20 do the trick? Is abortion ever ‘right’ for the baby?

    • Kay_Sue

      November 18, 2013 at 2:23 pm

      No. And she probably doesn’t care, because those 15 or 20 kids are planned, loved, and exactly where and when she wanted to have them. They have a happier, healthier mother.

      If a woman has the child, and then can’t afford to take care of it, or abused it or resents it, does that make up for being forced to bring that child into the world? It happens more often than the pro-life community would like to admit.

      If she is permanently injured during childbirth, if she has to have C section that then impacts any other planned births later, if she dies during childbirth, will that justify your belief that the pregnancy was worth her carrying no matter her own wishes for her body?

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 2:48 pm

      99.9 percent of baby killings are done on perfectly healthy mothers with perfectly healthy babies.

      So, by your logic, if a mother decides that her 3 yr old and 6 yr old will not be treated right, or might suffer in life some way, she should also be allowed to hire a killer for them too?

      Why not? Have you no compassion!

    • Kay_Sue

      November 18, 2013 at 3:05 pm

      Your leaps in logic completely astound me, Dmember. None of that logic applies to killing children.

      The woman’s life, the impact of pregnancy and childbirth on her body–those things matter. Women matter. I notice you glaze over the point where women die, or are permanently injured because of childbirth.

      That happens. An average of 700 deaths a year, as well as 52,000 cases of severe complications, and 34,000 “near misses”, where a woman nearly dies.

      No woman should be forced to go through pregnancy and face the potential life-altering complications. She should have options, she should have choices, and she should be left in peace to make the decision that is best for her.

      This will be my last post on this article, because debating with you is about as productive as debating with the wind itself, and moreover, you are entitled to your opinion the same as I am entitled to mine. The point I disagree with is that you are entitled to legislate your opinion over anyone else’s body.

    • Dmember

      November 18, 2013 at 3:11 pm

      Kay-Sue, you must remember that half the children killed by abortionists in the womb are….WOMEN. We must protect them from their mothers!

      I will tell you what I told dance….I am weary arguing with your blood lust. Goodbye forever.

    • Arekushieru

      November 27, 2013 at 4:06 am

      Um, sorry, but you are one of the reasons why I have chosen never to have (biological) children, AND you are one of the reasons why a LOT of women don’t see themselves as beautiful, rocking, OR important. If a person identifies as a woman, and the only way you’ll consider her a ‘responsible’ woman is if she has a uterus, then that’s not beauty OR importance, that is simply someone being forced to sacrifice one’s LIFE, health and well-being for someone else’ ACTUAL CONVENIENCE and sadistic nature.

      Also, another anti fails to carry out their propositions to their logical fucking outcomes. If a woman is no longer being a responsible woman because she no longer has a uterus, how many women do you think will be willing to face the stigmatization and shame that antis would LOVE to force on women (but never the fucking men, which proves what a liar Faye is, because she’s OBVIOUSLY only all for equality if you are NOT a woman) for ANY (meaning abortion, hysterectomy or sterilization) of the choices they might make that don’t jive with YOUR narrow view of what women (and ONLY women) who are responsible should do. Although, I have to say that if a woman needs help and is on welfare, she STILL receives judgment OR funding cuts. Hypocrites.

      And, besides that, you just called my mother an irresponsible woman because she had FUCKING NECESSARY medical surgery to remove a uterus that could very well have eventually KILLED her.

      Also, what about women who adopt, are infertile, older or use a surrogate? Are (have) they not ‘relieving’ (‘relieved’) themselves of all the ‘pain’ and ‘responsibility’ of being a woman and mother, by that logic? Wow, we really see just HOW compassionate antis are, don’t we? Use infertile women as the poster ‘girls’ for banning abortion, but lump them in with all the others you call irresponsible when it suits you. DISGUSTING.

      Another point that you will probably need clarified and hinges on a previous point is this: Hysterectomies are NOT elective surgeries, which is why my mother had to wait until her uterus became a serious medical issue before she was able to have it removed. Seriously, if you don’t know anything about something, don’t talk about it. It’s that simple, folks. Really.

      Finally, why should a woman be the ONLY person to have her right to self-determination AND to medical privacy be abrogated, by either forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term OR forcing her to have MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY INVASIVE SURGERY???

      Seriously, the ignorance from you antis, ASTOUNDS.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 27, 2013 at 9:45 am

      If a person identifies as a woman, and the only way you’ll consider her a
      ‘responsible’ woman is if she has a uterus, then that’s not beauty OR
      importance, that is simply someone being forced to sacrifice one’s LIFE,
      health and well-being for someone else’ ACTUAL CONVENIENCE and sadistic
      nature.

      It’s reproductive objectification.

    • fiona64

      December 3, 2013 at 5:30 pm

      Hysterectomies are not done absent medical necessity. Maybe you’ve never heard of tubal ligation; that’s female surgical sterilization.

      Which, by the way, has a known failure rate.

      You might want to educate yourself so that you don’t look like a complete dumbass.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 9:53 am

      Whoa. Whoa. Hold-up the CrazyTrain for one second:

      1.) Yes, my life matters a whole lot.

      2.) My life as a woman is NOT “the most important thing in the world”. Who taught you that being this self-centered and egocentric is a good thing, so much so that you should encourage it in others?

      3.) Yes, women do rock, women are beautiful, and women are important. But so are men, and so are children. I’m all about equality, baby.

      4.) My life doesn’t take “first billing” or “second billing” or any other number of billings, because there is no sliding scale that other human beings’ lives can be placed upon. WE. ARE. ALL. EQUAL.

      Take your feminist supremacist garbage and shove it. Being born with ovaries, a uterus, and a vagina doesn’t give me some fucked-up license to kill any children I spawn that I might deem “inconvenient”, their lives are every bit as “rocking” as mine, and they deserve the same right to live I’ve been given on this Earth.

    • Arekushieru

      November 27, 2013 at 5:15 am

      Ableism much?

      You antis take a LOT of things out of context, I see. About par for the course, anyways. You see, you can tell ANYONE that their lives as a man/child/woman/genderqueer/asexual is the most important thing in the world, because the key, here, is to THEMSELVES. That IS the context that you gave Women Matter, and the one that THEY were replying to, after all. Seriously, is cognitive dissonance ALL that antis are about?

      No, you are NOT about equality. You are about enabling the patriarchy and rape culture. You OBVIOUSLY believe that if a woman is judged by her appearance and superficial qualities more often than men, that that is fucking equality. Wow, what is up is down, what is wrong is right, to you guys. Even you must need a map after the way your brain pretzels itself into ‘false logic’ traps.

      Yes, we are all equal. But, in your attempt to make abortion illegal, or to force (other) women to carry pregnancies to term, you are saying that everyone is equal EXCEPT women. So fucking typical. You ARE saying that women’s (INDISPUTABLE human beings) lives can be placed on a sliding scale where theirs are the ONLY ones whose rights can be suborned by others’, after all. OOOOOPSS!

      Take your misogynist supremacist garbage and SHOVE IT. Being born with a penis, testicles and prostate does NOT give someone a fucked-up license to be the ONLY ones to ever be able to deny a life-sustaining organ to others under ALL circumstances. Abortion isn’t killing. At least not of FETUSES (who are not children). Abortion ends a pregnancy, a term that is in NO way equal to a fetus. Sad that someone who has NEVER been pregnant knows this over a woman who apparently *has* been. Another sad thing, because *I* have noted it, but you have not, is that pregnancy is the SECOND LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR WOMEN, WORLDWIDE….. A mere fucking ‘inconvenience’ does NOT (*actually*) kill you. By YOUR logic, rape is a fucking walk in the park. SICK. No, YOU think they deserve MORE of a right to live than anyone else on the fucking planet. And that leads us right back to WM’s point. And we see, once again, how Pro-Choice is always correct while antis are always incorrect. Oopsies?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 27, 2013 at 9:50 am

      Yes, we are all equal. But, in your attempt to make abortion illegal, or
      to force (other) women to carry pregnancies to term, you are saying
      that everyone is equal EXCEPT women

      Marcus Fenix had an interesting argument regarding that. When it was pointed out that no one else is forced to let others use their body as biological support, he pointed out that:

      1) they do it to executed prisoners in China

      2) pregnancy is an exception, so what? too bad you don’t like it, little girl

      https://mommyish.com/2013/10/29/10-reasons-to-have-an-abortion/#comment-1137985028

      You asked for specifics about people being forced with their bodies to do something to preserve their life, such as the person being locked up for a suicide attempt. It fit
      the question, and it wasn’t purposely obtuse. The fact you dislike it doesn’t really change the fact that it answered teh question.

      As I also pointed out elsewhere, I think we “whatever my name is today”, those examples such as the prisoners in China fit that to a tee.Use those examples if you like.

      also, as stated elsewhere here, even if you want to cherry pick it down to the fact that it only happens for pregnancy…the fact that you want to cite pregnancy as the exception doesn’t rule it out. It makes it an exception. It just happens to be one you don’t like, but its status as such doesn’t force it out of the discussion, so there’s that.

      Keep being angry about things though, and pitching ad hominems though. Just makes you look more ignorant in the long run, so enjoy.”

      ————-

      It seems to me that he is advocating gestational slavery.

      why?

      cuz reasons!

    • MarcusFenix

      November 27, 2013 at 11:02 am

      It seems to me that you’re still trying to put words in my mouth. It seems to me that you’re advocating things for me, at this point, that i’ve never said. It seems to me that you love drawing a connection between pregnancy and slavery, because invoking negative words and emotions from one topic and injecting them into another isn’t a purposeful attempt at intellectual dishonesty….well, it is, but, keep thinking it’s not.

      The examples I gave were legitimate for the question that was asked and in the manner it was asked. Just because I cited those examples doesn’t create some correlation between the two on some level or make them exactly alike. The person you posted to about this can read my reply, as you quoted it all, and see that is the case.

    • Arekushieru

      November 28, 2013 at 4:58 am

      Oops, I think I was going to be a little hasty in my judgment of thisposting, initially, QuD, but I think I understand the reasoning behind WHY you posted it, a little bit better, now. Because he really DOES lack anything other than superficial reasons. I mean, his reasoning is that pregnancy is an exception, therefore it should be an exception (which is the implication), and that really DOES say that gestational
      slavery is okay because he has reasons, whether or NOT those same reasons are left unexplained. He certainly seems to use false premises and circular reasoning a lot, doesn’t he? Which I’ll demonstrate, below.

      Here’s MY rebuttal, though, that I hope you will post in response to the one that he made.

      China is not only a different country (which is really irrelevant, but I’m using it because it explains my next point), it has a different set of laws. It’s actually a Pro-LIFE country, that has set a one-child policy to deal with limited resources due to the resulting overpopulation. What has happened is that women have been coerced to have abortions. Which means he’s using a false premise and circular reasoning (with addends, yes, but ones that don’t really change the ‘line’ of his reasoning): Specifically; a Pro-Choicer says no one else is forced to allow others to use their body as biological support. An anti gives an example of executed prisoners being forced to do so in China. China is
      an anti-choice country. The anti-choice are the ones advocating that pregnancy be the sole exception to otherwise *allowing* others to use one’s body for biological support (especially since we nary hear a peep
      from the anti-choice side, about this very same political issue in China, but, even more so, since we never hear a ‘peep’ from his ilk about other issues that are generally shared positions for BOTH sides, either, such as rape and living organ donations). But a Pro-Choicer saysno one else is forced to allow others to use their body as biological
      support. Basically, he’s using an anti-choice position to provide an example that supports his OWN, anti-choice, position.

      But, as usual, Pro-Choice is left to point out that arguing against our positionof non-coercion using examples FROM the other side’s position of coercion bolsters our OWN arguments. It means that the only justification they can find for it is when the deck is stacked in their favour. And lack of justification by any other means shows the differences in strength between our arguments. We often use anti-choice
      countries to make our own arguments, after all.

      And that’s what I’m going to do in the following post. But, before I do that, I’m pretty sure that I’m going to have to remind Marcus of his own words, because he’s an anti and like most antis, who are hypocrites, he’s probably going to complain that I’m only addressing part of his
      argument, that his argument doesn’t center around pregnancy being the only time the body can be forcibly used as biological support, and here they are, quoted VERBATIM back at him: You asked for specifics about people being
      forced with their bodies to do something to preserve their life… …The fact you dislike it doesn’t really change the fact that it answered teh question… …Keep being angry about things though, and pitching ad hominems though. Just makes you look more ignorant in the long run, so enjoy; I’m just answering the specifics of HIS argument! OOOPPS! Now onto the rest of my argument about Pro-Choice using anti-choice countries (specifically, in this case, China) to MAKE their (read: mine) arguments.

    • Arekushieru

      November 28, 2013 at 6:32 am

      I think he should also be careful about which countries he uses to support his agenda, next time, because China has rescinded not ONLY it’s one-child policy, meaning it’s taking steps to become less anti-choice, but is ALSO taking steps to reduce its reliance on organ procurements from executed prisoners. I don’t KNOW if they’re related, and I’m not going to argue that they aren’t (but, given what we’ve seen, even in other countries where abortion is illegal, more LIKELY they aren’t than are), but that means China is taking away the one argument that Mr. Marcus Fenix thinks he can use to address BJ’s own argument, REGARDLESS of the previous facts. Oopsies? Therefore, because China, ITSELF, actually seems to find this (the organ procurement, that is…) wrong, he actually did NOT answer her question for specifics, full. fucking. stop. So typical.

      The final thought on this specific matter, Mr. Fenix should have understood that BJ WASN’T saying that pregnancy IS an exception, she was saying that antis want to MAKE it an exception. He was using a ‘de-facto’ argument to argue that pregnancy *should* be an exception (and this is where *I* see the false premises and non-linear reasoning being injected into this ‘argument of exceptions’, on TOP of everything else).

      Also, when making your OWN ad hominem attacks, it’s best not to accuse others of doing so. I mean ‘little girl’??? TONE policing??? When YOU’RE part of the group that will never have to face the consequences of said ‘exceptions’ that you want to impose on those who ARE part of that group, those of whom you just happen to be arguing with, it’s BEST to EXPECT some kind of push-back, rather than blaming THEM for reacting to something THEY can’t control, being imposed on them by YOU, something you CAN control, then holding those others to OBVIOUSLY higher standards than yourself, because you would NEVER expect yourself to remain calm if the *exception* was that all men have to donate prostates to those with prostate cancer, and WOMEN were the ones that were imposing that on YOU, now would you? Even if you come up with the irrational excuse that you don’t know how you would respond if it did happen to you, all that means is that women wouldn’t know how they respond until it actually happens to them. Says nothing about how they CAN’T respond that way, now DOES it? DERP, hypocrite?

      But, even IF China was still forcing executed prisoners to donate organs and was a Pro-Choice country, women, in your country, are protected by the Constitution, *just like everyone else*, as SOON as you make an exception in one case, it’s very easy, and, essentially, mandatory, to make an ‘exception’ in ALL cases. Antis have great difficulty with logical outcomes, don’t they?

      Finally, even if the right to bodily autonomy wasn’t the law of the land, the fact that women undergo one extra biological process means that applying laws that affect only women is sexist and misogynistic. Therefore, since men cannot experience pregnancy, a law forcing a woman to gestate to full-term is a law that affects ONLY THEM.

      Baibai, hypocrite.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 28, 2013 at 1:27 pm

      You are also welcome to post your own rebuttal and take credit.

      And I can post mine?

      tag team!

    • Arekushieru

      November 29, 2013 at 2:29 am

      I don’t really want to talk to the likes of Mr. Fenix, but if you feel that that would work out better for you, I’ll do so! 🙂

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 29, 2013 at 5:17 am

      If you don’t want to , I won’t make you.

      I don’t like talking to him either.

      He is one of those pro-life asshats who is always wrong and always smug and condescending about his completely failure to understand what he is talking about.

      I am glad, however, that you saw the same flaws that I saw.

    • Arekushieru

      November 29, 2013 at 5:30 am

      Unfortunately, I would like to post this in response to him. GAH, so confused on what I should do!

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 28, 2013 at 1:24 pm

      You nailed it.

      China is at heart an anti-choice country. China *forces* abortions on women. China has been condemned for it’s human right’s abuses.

      So to say ‘well, China does it…so there!’, simply serves to undermine his argument and bolster ours. The point being that only totalitarian regimes that essentially *own* their people are the regimes that remove a person’s right to bodily autonomy.

      As for the ‘exception’ argument, it is indeed completely arbitrary. He is saying that ‘pregnancy should be an exception just ‘cuz’ it’s pregnancy’

      That is like saying that antebellum slavery was justified because blacks were an ‘exception’ to the rule that people should not be enslaved. If people = white people, and blacks are an ‘exception’ to that, then slavery is not immoral!

      Let’s review what Marcus said:

      the fact that you want to cite pregnancy as the exception doesn’t rule it out. It makes it an exception. It just happens to be one you don’t like

      And fix it for him:

      the fact that you want to cite antebellum slavery as the exception doesn’t rule it out. It makes it an exception. it just happens to be one you don’t like.

    • Arekushieru

      November 25, 2013 at 8:11 am

      You mean you think he deserved more of a right to live than everyone else, but ESPECIALLY you. Pregnancy and childbirth ARE the second leading causes of death for women worldwide. Since when did a deadly medical condition become equatable with mere discomfort? Oh, that’s right, antis have difficulty with presenting irrefutable arguments without diminishing at least one other factor, which generally turns out to be the woman. :/

    • ranchmom1

      November 7, 2013 at 11:16 am

      Yep, because some temporary discomfort certainly isn’t worth going through if it means someone will get to live. Really?

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:07 pm

      Eclampsia isn’t a temporary discomfort.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 9:46 am

      Considering that it’s a pregnancy condition, and that pregnancy is temporary, it technically is.

    • Prolife and prochoice.

      November 19, 2013 at 5:00 pm

      You ignorant person. Eclampsia is an acute and life threatening illness.Often fatal to mother AND baby. My friend died of it. You may be thinking of “pre-eclampsia”. Perhaps read a little more around a topic before commenting. I forgive your ignorance because you are clearly ill educated.

    • Arekushieru

      November 26, 2013 at 7:34 am

      So, it clearly is worth going through some temporary discomfort so that the person who is raping you will live. Ugh. I can’t believe that people like you believe things like this. It’s SO sickening.

    • Sue Hartman

      November 9, 2013 at 10:52 am

      So you are saying that the pain of childbirth, even though you have the option of pain drugs, is far worse than the fate of the child who has his legs ripped from his body then his arms ripped from his body then his skull crushed then vacuumed up and thrown away. Ya like totally the baby’s pain and agony should NEVER be considered cuz like you might mess up your hair and sweat or something

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:15 pm

      I would say the risks of eclampsia also have to be weighed in the choice to continue a pregnancy. That shit kills.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 10:04 am

      Usually it can be staved off until the child is developed enough to have a decent chance to make it out alive, though. I’ve had a sister and two sisters-in-law that have had it, and also 2 nieces and a nephew who are happy and healthy today.

      Not that anyone is even arguing against early induction of birth to prematurely end a pregnancy even if it might result in the death of the child if the need arises to save a mother’s life. However, that accounts for what…like, 1% or less of abortions these days?

    • BJ Survivor

      November 21, 2013 at 4:22 pm

      Again, what’s with the willful ignorance of you forced-birthers? Pre-eclampsia can usually be staved off with modern interventions. Full-on eclampsia and HELLP syndrome can only be cured by terminating the pregnancy. If the fetus is lucky enough to be far enough along to survive, then both may survive. Otherwise, the only ethical thing to do is to save the only life that can be saved, that of the woman. Of course, if a pregnant woman is unlucky enough to be in a catholic hospital, then both will die, because “pro-life” = women aren’t shit.

    • Breeanne Howe

      November 9, 2013 at 11:16 am

      I’m sure your child is really happy about being your inspiration for abortion.

    • Jim

      November 9, 2013 at 11:19 am

      So, in essance your justification of killing a child is pain? What a wonderful concept, legal killing of any one who causes us pain. May be refrain from sex until you are willing to accept the consequence of your choices instead of murdering them, just a thought.

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:12 pm

      Why is it always the woman who must refrain from having sex? Why is nobody on here calling men whores and telling them to keep their dicks in their pants? Seriously?
      Do you think women just walk down the street and go “pop!” oh, pregnant now!

    • Ariela

      November 12, 2013 at 10:06 am

      both men and women that dont want kids should refrain from sex (or get sterilized). The focus may seem to be on women in these types of comment boards because its generally the woman that choose to get the abortions — even though many are coerced/forced into it too

    • Tim Jensen

      November 10, 2013 at 12:16 pm

      Right, then stop sleeping with someone you don’t want a child with, and you will have 100% chance of NOT getting pregnant. Narcissistic idiot, glad you aren’t reproducing, douche bag!

    • sylvie

      November 10, 2013 at 1:16 pm

      Tim, your ignorance is beyond words. How about women who are being sexually abused and raped every day, should they carry pregnancies to term against their will. Go preach and be a dictator somewhere else and stay out of the women’s bodies.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 7:05 pm

      Sylvie your ignorance is beyond words.
      Are you saying that the 50 million dead babies since Roe are a result of rape and incest?
      Are you saying that we have a right to kill a 5 year old because her father becomes a rapist?
      Since when did we become a society that judges people based on who their father is?
      For you pro aborts Might Makes Right: is that not a dictatorship?

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:25 pm

      *fetuses

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 10, 2013 at 11:38 pm

      Fetus:
      noun
      declension: 4th declension
      gender: masculine

      Definitions:

      brood/litter
      children (of a parent)
      offspring/young (animals)

      http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/fetus

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 10:10 am

      sylvie, I was being sexually abused by my (now ex, thank goodness) partner. Now please tell me how that makes the life of my now 11 year old daughter less worthy of legal protection.

    • AugustW

      November 10, 2013 at 11:25 pm

      Why is it never the man’s fault?

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 10:05 am

      It is. But I think it has something to do with the fact that this article was written by a woman.

    • Ariela

      November 12, 2013 at 11:49 am

      To be fair to the unborn – you don’t know how big your baby will be at birth… the average baby is about 6-7 pounds (3-3.5kg). Plus, birthing is not so bad when you have good midwives/drs coaching you.

      I’ve had 3 kids, all born drug free – my first was 6.1 pounds (2.8kg) and my hardest to deliver because I didn’t know what I was doing and my widwife was shit and gave me an episiotomy. My second was premmie and 5.2 pounds (2.4 kg) and relatively easy because the midwive coaching me told me when to push and when to simply puff and he slipped right out (tore along my original episiotomy scar because it was weak there from when the first midwife cut me). My 3rd child was 9.2 pounds (4.2kg) and my easiest birth ever (not painless but no tearings/stitches) – and not coz I am stretched out… my hubby can attest to that! But easy because I was confident in what I was doing and the birth was wonderful… there’s way to much fear put onto women about pregnancy and birth.

      But say I was expecting a 13 pounder (the worlds biggest newborn to date) — would I be justified if killing my unborn because she’s a big baby? Just so I can avoid a bit of pain/tearing or a C-Section? No I wouldn’t! And those that would – kill a child just for being big and causing you discomfort for not even 9 months, probably just the last 4 or less — well that’s abhorrent and despicable to me.

    • Lane

      November 13, 2013 at 2:24 pm

      My cesarian-born son was 9 lb 6 oz and at 13 is an actor, an aspiring screenwriter and will be attending his first college class next semester. He’s a 5’8″ pile of curly hair, goofy jokes and a total love bug. He’s the sweetest thing on this planet and was a total surprise. The biggest surprise? How he has made my life unmeasurably richer. It’s not an overstatement to say that HE has made my life better, not the other way around. Those who abort are not only killing a child; they are missing out on what is, without a doubt, the best thing this life can offer — or at the very least — missing out on giving a beautiful life to a family who desperately wants to love and treasure their child.

    • Linda

      November 14, 2013 at 7:06 pm

      I would hate to be your child. How disgusting.

    • Kat

      November 15, 2013 at 1:12 am

      You are not forced to do anything! You made the choice to deal with he consequences when you decide to become physically intimate with someone and the is a responsibility and a choice you must deal with on your own. A baby should never suffer for the mistakes of their parents. If you have ever watched or seen a real abortion no one would be so adamant about this! I was born with my intestines outside on my body and I was given the gift of life. I COULD have killed my mother and myself, I could have had down syndrome, u could have had mungalism. The doctors did not think that I would make it and have me a time limit to live. Most children who were born such as myself do not survive and most are terminated for selfish reasons. My mother and I are perfectly normal, healthy even and I am greatful to have been given life. All children deserve love and respect. My mother did not complain or whine or cry when she had to go through all of that alone and raise me at the young age of 19, yet she did it because of two reasons she loves me and it was the right thing to do. The right thing to do because EVERY child deserves to feel loved and appreciated and cared for. EVERY child deserves to experience love and affection, and the only reason she used the car pictures up there was because she herself feels conflicted about the subject and doesn’t wish to acknowledge the fact that

    • Kat

      November 15, 2013 at 1:23 am

      …she cannot openly acknowledges the reality of abortion actually it is sad…most women try to make this sound like a right that they have but let me ask this when did the government ever hand us a certified license to kill a child? If I have learned anything with how I was born it is that all life. Rocks, trees, plants, animals, and yes especially children deserve to live. They did not ask to be here so thy are not to blame. It is sad, though how everyone will weep and moan over an animal, but instead of stopping the injustices that us humans inflict on ourselves and children who have no say, which is the worst offense of all, we just sit here and do nothing and allow yourself to get pregnant. Ha! If you don’t wish to get pregnant or you feel too young then maybe you are not responsible or ready enough to participate in shush actions that cause pregnancy. That’s the responsible thing to do…wait until you are ready.

    • yippeekayay

      November 26, 2013 at 7:21 pm

      unlike how you can force conception onto someone who doesn’t even know what’s happening. then if you force someone to be conceived (by having stupid, selfish unprotected sex) then you want to ignore the fact that they exist and just kill them? just flush them down the toilet and pretend they never existed at all? That’s so barbaric and primitive and ignorant. How modern and scientific and secular of you.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 26, 2013 at 7:26 pm

      A zygote exists after sex. A ‘person’ however does not.

      Abortion does not kill a person.

      A zygote/embryo/fetus is only a POTENTIAL person.

      There is no person until birth – or at least, until viability. Which is long past when abortions occur.

      That’s so barbaric and primitive and ignorant. How modern and scientific and secular of you.

      As I said, science disagrees with you, dumbfuck. A person is not a genetic blueprint. A person is not a clump of undifferentiated tissue with amoeba level awareness.

      There is no ‘soul’. And you can’t force women to procreate based on religious beliefs.

      And since 60-80% of zygotes spontaneously abort, and are flushed out of the woman’s system every month then yes, zygotic life is fairly fucking *cheap*.

      Tell me, do you consider women whose bodies have rejected these zygotes to be mothers of dead babies?

  2. Emmali Lucia

    October 29, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    I enjoyed the cats! And I would also like to add “You feel you cannot afford a baby,” because that’s actually the most common reason

    • Emily Wight

      October 29, 2013 at 1:17 pm

      YES. THEY ARE SO EXPENSIVE, MY GOD.

    • Sarah Hollowell

      October 30, 2013 at 12:20 pm

      That would seriously probably be one of my big reasons for aborting if I had an unplanned pregnancy like man sometimes I can barely afford my CAT much less an INFANT HUMAN.

    • meteor_echo

      October 30, 2013 at 12:30 pm

      Which will then grow into a not-so-infant human and cost even more :T
      Kids are expensive as fuck.

    • AugustW

      November 1, 2013 at 9:55 pm

      Word. I recently worked out a spreadsheet for my finances and budget…my kid takes up more than my car and apartment combined. Diapers, man.

    • AugustW

      November 1, 2013 at 9:55 pm

      Word. I recently worked out a spreadsheet for my finances and budget…my kid takes up more than my car and apartment combined. Diapers, man.

    • Erin

      November 2, 2013 at 4:56 am

      I do so many crunchy-mom things like breastfeed, cloth diaper, and make my own baby food for the primary reason that I am fucking cheap. But then daycare is almost as much as my mortgage payment every month. Bah.

    • Virginia Titterington

      November 14, 2013 at 11:26 pm

      My kids were all really cheap. I breastfed all three until they self-weaned, used cloth diapers, made my own baby food with a blender, and sewed every stitch of clothes they wore.
      As they grew, the kids took lunch to school, and I still sewed everything they wore. The kids even put themselves through college on scholarships and working. They didn’t have hundreds of gadgets and toys, but my kids found ways to entertain themselves, and they were voracious readers (free books from the library). ‘For entertainment, my oldest took up multiple musical instruments and joined a fife and drum corps, my middle one became a really good cook and great baker, and my youngest also became an avid (and really good) seamstress. I’ve never held with the concept that you can’t afford children.

    • meteor_echo

      November 15, 2013 at 2:21 am

      My parents did all of this. Guess what? They still went broke. Also, sewing kids’ clothes takes a metric crapton of time and it’s not something you can do if you have to work. And you’re kind of lucky that they earned scholarships – not every single child has the capability to do that, actually.
      There are situations in which you can’t afford kids. You just lucked out.

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 11, 2013 at 7:32 pm

      Sarah, please stick to cats: I love them! Don’t get pregnant! I love children even more!

    • ranchmom1

      November 7, 2013 at 11:20 am

      We have had times when we did not have a penny to our name while raising our girls. We never once considered killing them as a solution to our financial problems.

    • Arekushieru

      November 28, 2013 at 1:57 am

      No, because adoption would have been the answer, then. NOT abortion. Which is terminating a pregnancy, btw, NOT a fetus, so, not killing. Oi, learn 2 biology before responding, next time.

    • yippeekayay

      November 30, 2013 at 7:25 pm

      I feel that I cannot afford the wasted time college students spend while taking federal tax money for their “education”. I guess the only thing to do is start killing college students.

  3. Cee

    October 29, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    I LOVE (some) children. I work with children and think some are awesome little creatures of the universe and as an educator I wish they all go on and live awesome successful lives. Also, as I’ve mentioned before, we have had a baby boom in my family these past months so I’ve been holding newborns who turn me to emotional putty.

    One of the reasons I am pro choice is because I love children. I have seen many children that are abused, neglected, feel unloved, unwanted. Every day we read about newborns being stuffed in garbage bags or murdered because they are unwanted. Children don’t deserve to be where they are unwanted. They will know it and sometimes suffer emotionally and physically because of it.

    Obviously some parents will be good parents even though they did not want to have a child just yet. And the overarching reason should be that women should have a choice. Two tacos for you Eve for putting real reasons on this, not just rape and incest. But many people focus on these unborn, yet to even be created, children that they forget what is happening to the ones that are born and know they were unwanted. If they only sat in on ONE social worker/child psych visit…they will hear some very heartbreaking stuff.

    • Eve Vawter

      October 29, 2013 at 1:23 pm

      TWO TACOS

    • Kate

      October 29, 2013 at 2:22 pm

      I want to upvote this x10,000.

    • Austin DeArmond

      October 30, 2013 at 11:02 am

      I’m shocked by the profound callousness of this comment and how many people liked it.

      We do not determine the value of life based upon the quality of life. If we did, we would be killing all the homeless and handicapped people. Why should we not blow up third world countries? How does the mother know the baby’s life isn’t worth living? Apparently because it will be difficult, a mother gets to decide that the baby will not get to go to first grade, experience his or her first kiss, play baseball, get their mind blown in a philosophy class as a freshman, find a spouse, laugh at a million inside jokes with their friends, see their children grow up and go off to college, vote for president, create memories or grow old with their beloved.

      The best things in life are the most difficult things. What appears like an unfathomable hardship to one is a blessing in disguise for another. Maybe the mother doesn’t want the child, but does she speak for the rest of humanity? If you actually check out how many people are waiting in line to adopt children, including even AIDS and crack babies, you will discover you should be ashamed of yourself for ever using the word ‘unwanted’ when it comes to an unborn child. The pregnancy itself may be unwanted, but the child in the woman is not the pregnancy! True courage is not knowing when to take a life, but when to spare one.

      In the end, the mother is playing God. Why are her desires determinative for life and death?

      Your supposed concern for abused children is nothing more than a grand facade. Abortion does not lead to lower abuse numbers. As one writer noted, “In 1973, when abortion became legal in the United States, there were 167,000 cases of child abuse and neglect reported. Yet in 1980 there were 785,100 cases – an increase of 370% from 1973. Furthermore, in 1987 there were 2,025,200 cases reported, which represents an increase of 1112%.1 While a portion of this increase is due to better reporting, experts agree that these figures reflect a real trend toward ever higher rates of abuse.”

      It could be argued that the greatest form of abuse is murder. This argument is the same as saying, “I’m going to murder my brother so he won’t get his heart broken by his girlfriend five years from now.”

    • enuma

      October 30, 2013 at 11:11 am

      That GIF is perfect.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm

      If it was replying to the article itself, yes, it would be.

    • Austin DeArmond

      October 30, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    • CMJ

      October 30, 2013 at 3:02 pm

      Oh bless you’re heart.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm

      *your

    • Cee

      October 30, 2013 at 11:35 am

      First, you didn’t source yourself. As a student it offends me that you put quotes and not cite yourself. I take the time to do this, so should you.

      Secondly, I don’t think the children that are BORN, ALIVE, LIVING right now are less worthy of life no matter the circumstance. I work mostly in impoverished schools. If I believed they had no reason to be alive, I would not be dedicating my time to them.

      Third, I am talking about CELLS yet to be born, yet to be capable of breathing or at times even having a fucking nose to do so. . I have seen unwanted children. We hear about unwanted children killed right after birth all. the. time! You can spare an unwanted fetus abuse and even murder when there is an abortion before it even becomes. And, before you start, don’t give me any adoption bullshit, how many children have you personally adopted? And how many adopted children do you personally know? How many times have you carried something in your body that physically, mentally, and emotionally alters you just for the sake of what someone else decides?

      Fourth, don’t humanize a cluster of cells that aren’t in your body. This isn’t a mother ” playing god,” this is about a woman making a choice about what she wants in her body and in her life.

      Lastly, don’t have a uterus? Then shut the fuck up!

    • Austin DeArmond

      October 30, 2013 at 12:56 pm

      First, it is irrelevant whether or not I cite my own comments or work from elsewhere. That’s what most would consider a red herring. If you’re offended but such a thing, you honestly need to get out in the world and experience true moments and acts of injustice. This is not one of them and no one is impressed with your false sense of shock.

      Second, you’re obviously unaware of the philosophical, scientific, and religious reasons for the continuity of what is in the womb and what is outside of it. You’ve made an implicit judgment call concerning personhood without proving or showing it. Forgive me for not being impressed.

      Third, my second comment applies to this rather unfortunate stream of sentences. I’ve known adopted children, I currently know adopted children, I’ve worked with adopted children, and I will one day adopt children myself. Your last comment is essentially irrelevant. You know full well that men are incapable of pregnancy. But, that in no way implies that one cannot have an opinion on the issue of personhood, life, morality, and the societal effects of abortion. Surely you have beliefs and positions that you lack first-hand acquaintance with but are still meaningful and important to you. Can I have an opinion on capital punishment despite not ever pulling the plug ending someone’s life?

      Fourth, your statement is tantamount to “don’t humanize a human.” Surely you don’t think women give birth to baby giraffes or something other than human beings. The fact that you think a baby is nothing more than a cluster of cells is telling. Again, go educate yourself on this point. Read people who have different positions as you do. That’s the value of a college education. You’re exposed to a host of different viewpoints and you get to weigh and judge which positions are empirically adequate, logically consistent, and existentially viable. As long as you are a contingent, finite being who didn’t merely bring yourself into existence, your existence is owing to Another. Don’t trivialize life or the lives of others.

      Fifth, there’s that old liberal love showing its tolerant side again. You’re right, I lack a uterus. Yet, I have beliefs about the value and dignity of humanity that are not gender-specific. Trust me, it is a good thing that I don’t believe women are mere objects of male chauvinistic gratification, they have every right to life and education, and they should receive the same pay for a job as a man. One is not required to have a uterus to speak on such things and you’d be hard-pressed to make the case for such an idiotic position.

      I’m grateful you work with abused and neglected children in impoverished areas. I’ve spent time working in juvenile facilities as well as other endeavors myself. I would just ask you to think more deeply concerning the nature and value of personhood and humanity. These issues are of immense importance and affect many areas of life.

    • Cee

      October 30, 2013 at 1:32 pm

      Oh no, it is not false shock. I take citing sources very seriously. You should too. If you ever do this in a professional forum, you may be in trouble. You know, plagiarizing and all. Its not a small world problem when you’re being sued for hundreds of thousands, but suit yourself! And, I am certain at least one person was amused.

      Well you have made a judgement call for what is a person as well. You seem to make the judgement at conception or somewhere along the lines of it being in the womb. I have made a different decision from yours. You can say you are right, I can say I am right. And, we shall both continue. You have not proved your call is correct either? It probably is because it is tied to beliefs, yes?

      As a man, yes, you can have an opinion but I firmly believe it is irrelevant in the actual actions a woman wants to take in regards to her body and her life and you should not influence women legally. You can say all you want about children and abortion being murder, but the second you make a move to forbid women from doing this, I will counter you with the argument of you not having a uterus. Because you don’t get to tell a woman what to do with her body. You lack the ability of ever knowing what it is like physically, emotionally, financially, psychologically and all that to be pregnant. You don’t have a uterus so you just don’t get a final say. Women are getting abortions this very day, and you being against them does nothing to stop them because they get to decide what happens in their uterus. See?

      Again, you and I have made a decision on where life begins. You believe a cluster of cells is a human, I believe it is a cluster of cells. When a person says educate yourself it is like saying do your research. You will find something that benefits you, I will find something that benefits me. It is the magic of the internet!

      It is great that you believe women should be equal. I can only hope it can one day extend to at least tolerating the fact that women get to make the calls for their bodies.

    • Austin DeArmond

      October 30, 2013 at 1:49 pm

      I understand your comments concerning citation. This is not a formal forum and thus it is not necessary. I know about plagiarism. I graded college papers for two professors for two years and understand what it means to steal intellectual property from another individual. In the end, these and your comments on this topic are irrelevant.

      I think I can build a case that what is in the womb is a person. Can you build one that says it is not or must you rely on bare assertion? You’re right- there’s a difference between beliefs and knowledge (and assertion).

      “You can say you are right, I can say I am right.” We both cannot be right at the same time in the same way for that would lead to contradiction.

      Having a uterus does not qualify as the moral grounding for an action. All I would say is there are unfortunate consequences for this action, both now and onward. Caring about human flourishing is something all of humanity ought to do.

      You’re right. I am saying “educate yourself.” People should have very good and cogent reasons for why they believe what they believe. Even me.

      My beliefs about equality extends to even the smallest of women. Your rights end where another begins. The problem in the discussion is the definitional dodge concerning personhood and when that begins. This is where education is required. Loving your neighbor and being tolerant extends to people; not every destructive belief one holds. Ideas have consequences.

    • AlbinoWino

      November 1, 2013 at 5:15 pm

      Can you build a case that says forcing each and every women who becomes pregnant will benefit physically, emotionally, and psychologically by being forced to have that child? Oh right, I forgot, they’re just machines made for breeding and their thoughts, emotions, and well being are of no consequence.

    • Austin DeArmond

      November 4, 2013 at 2:13 pm

      There is a wordview that says we’re nothing more than
      machines or animals. It is not my own.

      Atheist philosopher Patricia Churchland writes, ““Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.”

      Humans have objective worth and dignity in my worldview. They are equal and ought to be treated with love, respect, and honor. You’re more than your actions or your social status.

    • Austin DeArmond

      November 4, 2013 at 2:13 pm

      There is a wordview that says we’re nothing more than
      machines or animals. It is not my own.

      Atheist philosopher Patricia Churchland writes, ““Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.”

      Humans have objective worth and dignity in my worldview. They are equal and ought to be treated with love, respect, and honor. You’re more than your actions or your social status.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 6, 2013 at 5:49 pm

      Can you build a case that states parents should only be forced to see to the well-being of their children if it benefits them in some way?

    • AlbinoWino

      November 8, 2013 at 7:04 pm

      Just because you want all parents to immediately selfless from the very moment they discover they’re going to be parents doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. You can’t make everyone believe as you believe. You can outlaw abortion but regardless of the moral arguments, you’re not going to stop it. Are you familiar with how things were for women before Roe v. Wade when they wanted an abortion? Perhaps you don’t care because your pro-life stance only extends as far as the life of the fetus and as soon as a woman has made a choice to terminate that pregnancy her life, to you, is meaningless. So you can whine all day about the immorality of abortion but the only way you’re going to reduce abortion is through sex education. Abortion will always exist, it is simply a matter of if that procedure can be done safely and legally that truly matters. Many nations with the highest abortion rates are in places where there is little sex education, little access to contraception, and where the procedure is illegal. Is that how you want Western nations to be as well?

    • Faye Valentine

      November 8, 2013 at 8:29 pm

      “Just because you want all parents to immediately selfless from the very moment they discover they’re going to be parents doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.”

      Nope. But are you suggesting that we abolish Child Protective Services, just because child abuse still happens despite our wishes as a society that it shouldn’t?

      “You can’t make everyone believe as you believe.”

      No, I can’t make everyone place value on human life as I do. But that is why society constructs laws to protect human lives in the first place.

      “You can outlaw abortion but regardless of the moral arguments, you’re not going to stop it.”

      I’m well-aware of this. Passing laws against harming children is just one thing to do in order to protect them. Other things to be done are community outreach programs, support groups for families in crisis, and things like that. But just because people are going to insist on harming themselves or their children is a sorry excuse for throwing our hands up as a society and saying, “Oh well, we gotta let ’em do what they’re gonna do.” if innocent lives are at stake.

      “Are you familiar with how things were for women before Roe v. Wade when they wanted an abortion?”

      You mean the less than 200 women who died the year before the Roe v. Wade case due to self-inflicted injuries or injuries at the hands of quacks who tried to help them kill their children? Less than 200 in the span of a year is a much smaller number than the more than 3,500 currently A DAY that lose their lives to legal abortion. Passing a law to save less than 200 lives (which is still up for debate, since the number was steadily declining even before Roe v. Wade due to medical breakthroughs like antibiotics) by granting permission to take more than 3,500 lives daily sounds like a pretty shitty trade-off to me.

      “Perhaps you don’t care because your pro-life stance only extends as far as the life of the fetus and as soon as a woman has made a choice to terminate that pregnancy her life, to you, is meaningless.”

      You mean, “…and as soon as a *mother* has made a choice to *prematurely terminate her pregnancy by killing her child in utero*, to you, *she has become homicidally self-injurious, and the only person responsible for her behaviors is herself, because women are rational agents capable of making their own decisions and living (or dying) with the consequences thereof*.”

      C’mon. Give us some credit. We’re functioning adults, aren’t we?

      “So you can whine all day about the immorality of abortion but the only way you’re going to reduce abortion is through sex education.”

      I agree with that, to a point. The most effective program to combat unplanned pregnancy, by the numbers, has been an sexual education program that is comprehensive while stressing abstinence at the same time. Unfortunately, it seems neither side of the debate is willing to actually look at the drop in the unplanned pregnancy rate in states which have implemented such programs like California, and prefer to just grandstand for their respective ideologies, all-or-nothing, facts and figures be damned. Unfortunate, really.

      If you want to see where rational Pro-Lifers stand on such an issue, please see this article by Secular Pro-Life:

      http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/07/fewer-abortions-fewer-births-ca-teen.html

      “Abortion will always exist, it is simply a matter of if that procedure can be done safely and legally that truly matters.”

      Let’s re-phrase this to see why it doesn’t work:

      “Child killing will always exist, it is simply a matter of if that 4 year olds can be safely, legally, and humanely euthanized that truly matters.”

      Umm, no. We don’t pass laws legalizing behaviors that harm others simply to protect the well-being of perpetrators.

      “Many nations with the highest abortion rates are in places where there is little sex education, little access to contraception, and where the procedure is illegal. Is that how you want Western nations to be as well?”

      Actually, many European nations have MUCH stricter restrictions on abortion than the United States, and have much lower abortion rates. I wouldn’t think of France, Italy, or Germany as the Third-World-Ish countries you seem to be trying to pass them off as, here.

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 11, 2013 at 7:04 pm

      How many pro-choice organizations run hospitals, orphanages, schools, after-school programs, soup kitchens, food pantries, adoption agencies, relief services domestic and abroad, prison ministries, rehab facilities, AIDS and other hospices…? Just askin’.

    • talkto

      November 7, 2013 at 10:30 am

      We are created with the spectacular privilege of being able to carry life to it’s fruition…a newborn baby. That so many women choose to throw this away or waste it frivolously speaks to a mindset that does not see how really essential we are. We are not like men…we have a huge responsibility in this area, to choose a mate carefully and well, and to not waste our children into the toilet, trash, or incinerator.

    • Kaliane Moloch

      November 13, 2013 at 6:05 am

      What a privilege. A screaming, urinating, defecating infant.

      I would rather be valued for the choices I make and the skills I have, not an organ I didn’t ask to be born with and would rather not have.

    • someone45

      November 16, 2013 at 12:59 pm

      I view the ability to get pregnant as anything but a privilege. Thankfully I have the option to have an abortion if I do ever find myself pregnant.

    • talkto

      November 7, 2013 at 10:27 am

      If a man wants a say in a pregnancy, he should wait until he is in a committed relationship, preferable marriage, in which the child is guaranteed a loving home and support, and a roof over his head, before he has sex.

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 11, 2013 at 6:46 pm

      Does that go for the woman, too?

    • Michelle

      October 31, 2013 at 8:57 pm

      If you are choosing what is inside you choose not to have to dick in you then you dont have to worry about a child

    • AugustW

      November 1, 2013 at 9:49 pm

      Which would work awesome for all those rape victims. Oh wait.

    • Erin

      November 2, 2013 at 4:45 am

      Silly rabbit, most women deserve their rapes! That’s what they get for wearing those short skirts, dontcha know.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 6, 2013 at 5:50 pm

      As a pro-life rape victim, I find your comment beyond disgusting.

    • talkto

      November 7, 2013 at 10:32 am

      We would do well to help the men in our lives by dressing more modestly. Of course, I get that your comment is tongue in cheek, and no woman should be attacked because she dresses in revealing wear. But as women, we should attend to this.

    • Sandrilene

      November 10, 2013 at 1:20 pm

      What the hell. If men don’t like the way women dress then they shouldn’t look. Have you ever considered that women might dress for their own comfort and practicality according to the weather?
      I don’t wear revealing clothes but that’s because it rains most of the time not because I subscribe to some men-are-so-helpless notion of modesty.

    • Faye Valentine

      November 11, 2013 at 10:11 am

      Agreed.

    • Erin

      November 2, 2013 at 4:45 am

      Silly rabbit, most women deserve their rapes! That’s what they get for wearing those short skirts, dontcha know.

    • talkto

      November 7, 2013 at 10:31 am

      The internet is awash with children who are the product of rape that are grateful for their lives…the homecoming queen of notre dame this year is a famous example.

    • heather

      November 7, 2013 at 1:25 pm

      According to one website, 17.3% of women in America are
      raped or someone has attempted to rape them. The estimated pregnancy rate from
      rape is about 5%.

      According to the US department of Justice, in the years
      2004-2005 (just as an example), 64,080 women were raped. 5% of 64,080 is 3,204.
      So there were 3,204 pregnancies resulting from rape.

      According to another website, only half of those pregnancies
      resulted in abortions. So of the 3,204 rape-related pregnancies, only 1,602
      women felt the need to turn to abortion. This is not counting the women who may
      have been under pressure from parents or significant others (pregnant teenagers
      often are, after all, given the option to abort by their parents).

      Not including miscarriages, 22% of all pregnancies (rape or
      not) end in abortion. According to the Guttmacher institute, there are about
      6.7 million pregnancies in America each year. 22% of 6.7 million is 1,474,000.

      So subtracting the number of pregnancies from rape which
      ended in abortion, you still have approximately 1,472,398 aborted pregnancies
      yearly which were not a result of rape.

      Rape is a painful tragedy for the victims but the argument
      of rape is not a good one because the amount of abortions performed as a result
      of rape is only a small fraction of the total number.

      REFERENCES:

      RAINN. (2009). Who are the Victims? Breakdown by Gender and
      Age. In RAINN: Rape, Abuse and Incest
      National
      Network. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.rainn.org/get-
      information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims.

      Holmes MM, Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG, Best CL.. (August,
      1996). Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and
      descriptive characteristics from a
      national sample of women. In Pubmed.gov.
      Retrieved
      November 7, 2013, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248.

      Guttmacher Institute. (October, 2013). Facts on Induced
      Abortion in the United States . In Guttmacher
      Institute. Retrieved November 7,
      2013, from
      http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      November 11, 2013 at 12:39 pm

      Well… according to one pro abort, some rape victims have a “moral responsibility” for their fate. Lovely, isn’t she? And she’s on your side.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10418682/Rape-victims-should-have-moral-responsibility.html

      Even Akin wasn’t this bad.

    • talkto

      November 7, 2013 at 10:26 am

      I recommend that all men and women who don’t want to have children refrain from sex. Having said that, once a child is conceived, take responsibility for the child’s life. There are people waiting to adopt. Your arguments are lacking. We cannot agree on when life begins. Should we then err on the side of death? No.

    • Megan Sass

      November 15, 2013 at 11:03 pm

      I feel that somebody needs to make the “rape & incest” comment here.

    • Samantha Lee Joy

      November 7, 2013 at 11:12 am

      Here, chew on this (and I DO have a uterus!!!). I was born unwanted, unloved, abused, and thrown away. My biological mother left me alone for days on end to cry for food and comfort and a change of diaper. Are you saying she should have aborted me? Because, to be perfectly honest, I am a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better mother because of what I have been through. It has made me a wonderful wife and Pro-Life until I die! Those “cells” (you…to cite and put quotes) that I carried (one for 36 weeks, one for 27 weeks and 2 for 42 weeks) are beautiful children! If you can honestly say they are a bunch of cells after you have felt them kick and respond to your voice, then you are a heartless, evil, baby-killing supporter who will be going to hell and getting (I believe) some of the worst punishment God can dole out!

    • ranchmom1

      November 7, 2013 at 11:15 am

      AMEN Samantha Lee! We adopted our daughter after she lived a *nightmare* of a childhood. She LOVES her life, and she is one of the very best moms I know! Her daughter calls her “My BMLF – Best Mom Like, Forever!”

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 7:45 pm

      Bless your heart. Thanks.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 8:51 am

      Somebody downvotes, “Bless your heart. Thanks.”

      WOW!

    • Linda

      November 7, 2013 at 11:14 pm

      Yay, Samantha!!! You go, girl!!!!

      Thank God you survived! And you are SO right–Cee is a heartless, callous baby-slaughter supported who has NO idea that the reason so many babies are being killed at birth and stuffed in garbage cans and toilets and dumpsters is BECAUSE OF ABORTION!!! When a baby has NO VALUE 5 minutes AFTER birth, baby-killers like Cee believe the same babies have no value 5 minutes BEFORE birth!

      Cee, please address Samantha’s reply. Was she just a bunch of cells without a F****** nose before she was born?

      By the way, Cee: it’s ALWAYS pro-baby torture people like you who use obscenities and vulgarities. Anger problems, Cee? Hatred problems, Cee?

    • Kaliane Moloch

      November 10, 2013 at 4:30 pm

      Nope. We just don’t agree with forcing women to have babies against their will.

    • Linda

      November 11, 2013 at 11:40 am

      Then don’t have sex unless you’re married. The sexual act was designed by God for the procreation of children. He made it pleasurable in order to perpetuate the human species.

      Every child killed by his or her own mother will rise on Judgment Day to convict his or her own mother/father/abortionist, etc. for the ultimate act of selfishness: the murder of one’s own offspring.

    • Oubli

      November 11, 2013 at 12:46 pm

      So if I’m married I’m automatically a baby making machine? Also I love how people say just don’t have sex! As a married woman I’m not suppose to have sex with my husband because it may result in a pregnancy that by a stranger’s tyranny I should be forced to bear to term???

      Sorry but decisions about my husband and I reproducing should be left to us, not the tyranny of some anti-choicer on the ‘net.

    • Isaiah OCDS

      November 11, 2013 at 6:52 pm

      If hubby, for example, wants to commit suicide, on what basis do you have the right to try to talk him out of it? Perhaps you wouldn’t try? Would you facilitate it, in order to honor his “choice”? Just wondering….

    • Oubli

      November 11, 2013 at 7:15 pm

      Hubby has recently had a traumatic brain injury (3 yrs ago, car accident) he is still recovering from, when the original trauma occurred he actually wrote out his will and decided that if he showed little to no improved in X amount of time then he would choose to unburden his family of himself. Fortunately he has recovered sufficiently that he no longer thinks he would be a burden to us but to answer your question no I didn’t try to talk him out of it. Yes, I would have helped him if he had asked me.

    • Elena Maria

      November 12, 2013 at 1:37 am

      Then use birth control. There are at least a half dozen or more to chose from

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 9:01 am

      Those choices do belong to you (not your husband).

      Linda is just hoping and praying that moms will allow their babies to live, because there’s never a reason to kill the little guy or gal before birth.

      There is no reason to kill your little son or daughter AFTER she or he is born. There should not be any more reason to do so beforehand, either.

      I know that Roe v. Wade gives the mom the LEGAL right to kill, so please don’t keep saying “woman’s right.”

      Just because someone has a right to do something, that doesn’t mean she should do it. Husbands used to have a legal right to rape their wives.

      That didn’t make it a good idea.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 12:55 pm

      There is no reason to kill your little son or daughter AFTER she or he
      is born. There should not be any more reason to do so beforehand,
      either.

      Well clearly you think that a zygote has the same moral value as a born child.

      so tell us, if a woman purposely performs an abortion on her own unborn son or daughter, an innocent little baby, how much jail time should she serve?

    • Kaliane Moloch

      November 13, 2013 at 6:00 am

      Not God’s uterus, not God’s choice.

    • Linda

      November 13, 2013 at 3:34 pm

      It IS God’s uterus: everything created by God belongs to HIM! You might have the freedom to choose to murder your child, but you HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL YOUR OFFSPRING, OR ANYONE ELSE’S!

      God-given freedom means that He has given us the free will to choose good or bad, right or wrong. But HE has NOT given the human race the “right to choose” to murder anyone, least of all, innocent babes in the womb.

      God is not mocked, Moloch. This you will discover on that fateful day. Your cute moniker of “Moloch” says everything one needs to know about you. For those who aren’t familiar with the name “Moloch”, Moloch was the pagan idol in the Old Testament that unfaithful Jews would try to appease by placing their babies in the arms of the stone “god” and watch them burn to death, so as curry Moloch’s favor.

      Now the demonic god Moloch dwells inside every Planned Parenthood building and every other abortion mill, luring parents with the promise of a good life, a free life, a self-indulgent, self-worshipping life, if only you will… KILL YOUR CHILD.

    • Kaliane Moloch

      November 13, 2013 at 7:49 pm

      If it’s God’s uterus, then you know what? God should come down here, collect that uterus, and store it someplace other than inside my body.

    • Linda

      November 13, 2013 at 10:57 pm

      Kaliane, my dear: You are a woman with serious anger and bitterness issues. Someone must have hurt you terribly, or you must have killed your own child and simply can’t accept that horrific fact.

      I just can’t bring myself to believe that there are women who are so cold-hearted and so full of hatred, that they would say what you just said about God taking your uterus away. Only a wounded soul could ever, ever think like that.

    • Kaliane Moloch

      November 14, 2013 at 5:23 am

      Nope. Just using some logic. If it’s his uterus let him use his own storage space.

    • Linda

      November 14, 2013 at 7:05 pm

      Do you have any idea what is in store for you on Judgement Day? Do you think that your Creator will not exert His inconceivable wrath on you for your base ingratitude and callous mockery of Him and His gifts????

      Women have been given the greatest privilege known to mankind: the ability to conceive and bear in her very womb, a new human being with an immortal soul. Even the angels have not been blessed with such a grace. And you degrade in the most vile manner the greatest gift given to you after the gift of your own life.

      Your comments and attitude are so chilling, that they can only arise from the darkest, evil place: Hell.

    • Kaliane Moloch

      December 1, 2013 at 9:05 pm

      Thanks for giving me something to giggle at.

      God gives crappy gifts. If he wanted to give me a gift he could just get me a German shepherd puppy.

    • Kaliane Moloch

      December 1, 2013 at 9:07 pm

      Also, your Creator can drink my diarrhea.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 21, 2013 at 4:44 pm

      Sorry, cupcake, but your imaginary sky daddy does not own me. Neither does your vile church. Just sayin’.

    • Linda

      November 21, 2013 at 10:57 pm

      “Cupcake”? What does that mean? Oh, I get it. You’re trying to be cute and superior. Nice try. It didn’t work.

      “Imaginary sky daddy”? Tell that to your Creator and Judge on the awful day in which you draw your last breath (a.k.a. Judgement Day). Atheists only reveal their utter ignorance of science when they try to be cool by using stupid, juvenile phrases such as “sky daddy”.

      “Vile church”? You have no idea what church I belong to. As for “vile”, the church you so abhor is the only means in which you can be saved for all eternity. And eternity never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never ends. Grow up BJ, only immature atheists such as yourself are common sense-deprived.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 22, 2013 at 5:34 pm

      I can tell you are a fundie christian, that you attend church, and that you’ve never even read your own stupid holy book. Which I actually have and which is why I am now atheist.

    • Linda

      November 22, 2013 at 8:33 pm

      It’s easy to be pro-abortion (so pro-abortion, that one has killed her own child) and to be an atheist.

      When you’re an atheist, you don’t have to bother with those pesky Commandments, especially the one that says, “Thou shalt not kill”. You don’t have to worry about going to Hell because you don’t believe in it–POOF! Problem solved! You don’t have to try hard to live up to a strict moral code, because it makes no difference, since there’s no afterlife, anyway.

      If it feels good, do it! Boy, it must be so much fun to be an atheist. Live for pleasure, sex, instant gratification, entertainment, debauchery, kill your unborn children, mock Christians as insane radical maniacs, blaspheme the God you claim you don’t believe in, throw blood-soaked menstrual pads at pro-life activists, spit on March for Life walkers, hate the Church, love yourself, adore yourself, worship yourself.

      “I can tell that you’ve never even read your own stupid holy book”. Come on, BJ, you’re just showing your immaturity and your outrageously common-sense deprived brain. You know darn good and well that I’ve read the Bible. That’s why I pray for your conversion, but know that you hate me. and I pray anyway for you. Funny thing is, I don’t hate anyone on the left, even those so pathetically lost as you are. In fact, you are in most need of prayer than many people I know.

      So continue your vicious hatred for all that is precious and holy and good, and people like me will persevere in praying for those who hate us. You hate Jesus and that’s why you hate Christians. Oh, well, this story is as old as the world.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 22, 2013 at 8:36 pm

      More than seven in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic and 7% other), and 25% attend religious services at least once a month. The abortion rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women have a slightly higher rate, 22 per 1,000.

      Jones RK and Kavanaugh ML, Changes in abortion rates between 2000 and 2008 and lifetime incidence of abortion, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2011, 117(6):1358–1366.

      http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

      The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

      When pro-lifers choose abortion, often from the picket line.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:09 pm

      So what?

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:15 pm

      pro-lifers and the religious have abortions in about the same # as pro-choicers and the non-religious

      you don’t have any moral high ground to stand on

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:18 pm

      Don’t need any. I never said I did.

      I only said nobody can deny the simple fact that abortion kills a little son or daughter living inside her or his mom.

      I also said — in case you didn’t notice — that one does not need religion to see what a bad idea abortion is. I also said some atheists also pro-life. Therefore, there’s no need for religion, in order to discuss what a bad idea abortion is.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:26 pm

      It’s a bad idea to be forced to give birth against one’s will.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:34 pm

      How is anyone forcing such a thing?

      The baby would just keep getting bigger. I think the mom would WANT it to be born eventually?

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:37 pm

      If you ban abortion then you are essentially forcing women to remain pregnant against their will.

      And no, birth isn’t fairy farts and unicorns.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:38 pm

      ???? What does that mean? I’m a mom of six grown adults, grandmother of many.

      You’re going to tutor me regarding birth?

      Don’t think so QuD.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:53 pm

      Your anecdata is meaningless.

      20 million women worldwide are permanently disabled from pregnancy.

      Over 1 million in the USA alone.

      287 thousand die worldwide

      but hey, you had 6 kids and apparently labour pains and giving birth FELT WONDERFUL

      So, let’s go by your worthless anecdotal data and ignore the World Health Organization statistics.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 8:50 am

      I wouldn’t kill my babies just because labor and birth don’t feel so good. (BTW — the worst pain, AND the most readily and easily forgotten.)

      So, where are those dad-blasted citations for your statements here?

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 2, 2013 at 10:09 am

      You decided to carry six pregnancies and give birth. You freely made those choices and took those risks (and even uncomplicated pregnancies carry some risk). You made the decision that was best for you. But it is not up to you or me or any other third party to decide what risks another person should take. Those decisions should be left up to the woman who is actually pregnant.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm

      I wouldn’t kill my babies just because labor and birth don’t feel so
      good. (BTW — the worst pain, AND the most readily and easily
      forgotten.)

      Yeah, that’s YOU. Not everyone can easily forget that pain, and women live in fear of it.

      The right to life does not trump all other rights. You can’t even force someone to stub their toe in order to save a life. You can’t force people to donate blood to save a life. And both are less risky and painful than pregnancy and birth.

      Why do you view pregnant women as second class citizens?

      So, where are those dad-blasted citations for your statements here?

      Well, you need to provide a citation for your statement that since you had 6 kids and that each pregnancy and birth was pleasant and wonderful that this is true for all women in all cultures in all the world across all of time. Prove THAT first.

      Second, you need to answer my and Jennifer’s questions about how much jail time a woman should serve for performing an abortion on herself. And if rape victims should be permitted abortion.

      WE have only been asking for 20+ hours. and you refuse to answer…

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 1, 2013 at 10:58 pm

      The blatant hypocrisy doesn’t bother you?

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 8:46 am

      Why should it?

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 2, 2013 at 9:04 am

      So, it doesn’t bother you that ‘pro-lifers’ will justify their own abortions while protesting and fighting to deny them to others at the same time?

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 9:26 am

      Everything about abortion bothers me. No mom should ever kill her little son or daughter before the little guy or gal has had a chance to breathe in oxygen.

      I don’t really care about race, religion, creed, orientation, politics or anything else. That little guy or gal should be allowed to live and grow.

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 2, 2013 at 9:07 am

      I have noticed that conservatives don’t seem to care about hypocrisy, about the fact that ‘family values’ conservatives rarely practice what they preach. Callista Gingrich was a man’s mistress for eleven years and still gets to call herself a devout catholic.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 9:22 am

      I’m not a conservative. Far from it. I agree they’re a bunch of glass bowls.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 9:03 am

      It always bothers me when a mom kills her baby.

      But, other than that, why should I care what “religion” the mom claims to be involved in?

    • BJ Survivor

      November 24, 2013 at 6:39 pm

      Maybe you and others like you need the specter of some vengeful sky daddy to refrain from running amok, but I and many, many others do not.

      Ah, yes, the commandment “thou shalt not kill” for which the punishment for disobeying it is to be killed. My Jewish friends tell me that the original Hebrew was mistranslated and it should be “thou shalt not murder,” which would make more sense given Yahweh’s penchant for commanding that those who disobey his edicts be executed. In any event, there is lots and lots of killing and genocide, ordered by God, in your vile holy book, which you would know if you had actually read it, as you claim.

      I have been challenged more than once to a scriptural debate by a forced-birther. They always lose. Here is one that has survived in cyberspace: http://bjsurvivor.livejournal.com/618.html I was challenged to a scriptural debate to refute the fundie forced-birther’s assertion that the christian deity is “pro-life” and I hosted the debate on my Live Journal page.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:08 pm

      Please be advised that the title of this page is obscene, if anybody should consider clicking on that link.

      I WAS willing to read it, until I saw that. It’s just more anger, cynicism, bitterness and hatred.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:16 pm

      You’re the only bitter one.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:19 pm

      Brilliant retort! lol

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:06 pm

      You’re “now atheist?”

      So, you weren’t always?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 22, 2013 at 6:54 pm

      Prove that your god exists.

    • Kat

      November 24, 2013 at 12:02 am

      God does not need to be proven be suddenly if he wanted to make you believe he wouldn’t have created free-will. Jesus created free-will so that you could choose. You need to understand that God wants us to freely choose in Him and that is by faith. Please let us revert from slandering Jesus, because some of us do love Him and hearing such hatred is hurtful. Faith and salvation get you to heaven and to prove that he is real you must find your own reasons. You can’t prove he is real to hose who are lost because they will not understand you can only prove to yourself and that’s okay. He wants free belief if he came to you floatin down from heaven do you really think that that is free-will? No , it’s not. I am not trying to sound naive or like some duche so please do not take it te wrong way. I am just explaining the real reason. I am not what you would call your everyday christian nor a Sunday Christian, and I have atheist friends so just know that I speak from my heart respectfully.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 24, 2013 at 1:02 am

      You sound like a decent sort, kat.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 7:51 pm

      Yet, abortion kills a living human being anyway.

      You don’t have to be religious to know that. Even atheists admit it.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:19 pm

      No, abortion kills a living human *organism*

      Not a human being.

      Since human beings are sentient and sapient *individuals*

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:35 pm

      Where do you draw the line? Do you sleep? Are you sentient while sleeping?

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 1, 2013 at 8:39 pm

      Of course you’re sentient while sleeping; your brain doesn’t just shut off. But unlike a fetus, you don’t have to be inside the body of another in order to survive.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:43 pm

      Try looking it up in a dictionary.

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 1, 2013 at 8:46 pm

      Try looking what up? Sleep? Fetus? Clarity, please.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:46 pm

      Sentient.

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 1, 2013 at 8:52 pm

      I’ve been unconscious and I’ve been asleep. There is actually a difference. And dreaming requires sentience.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 8:52 am

      Unborn babies do dream.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:54 pm

      Can’t have sentience without a brain.

      I have come to the conclusion that you are non-sentient, like an anencephalic fetus.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 8:54 am

      Wow, totally brilliant — once more.

      Don’t go into any ad hominem attacks (i.e., name-calling) or anything. That might indicate you have no foundation for your argument.

      Oh, — wait.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 12:57 pm

      Yeah, considering the fact that you refuse to answer questions that are ‘inconvenient’ by giving lame responses.

      And the fact that you think your personal experience somehow speaks for the safety and pleasant experience of pregnancy across all time and all cultures

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:35 pm

      Unborn babies are individuals.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:40 pm

      The details of how twinning happens were discovered in the 20th Century, and, basically, a few days after conception, a single human organism might split to become identical twins –or even identical triplets. And it can split..recombine..and split again. Over a period of days.

      Well, since identical twins/triplets simply don’t physically exist as individuals until days after conception, exactly when should it be claimed that “life” began for just one of them?

      A completely new factor, in the description of “human life”, was discovered a couple decades ago.

      It turns out that when fraternal twins are conceived (two completely separate egg-fertilizations), the resulting organisms don’t always stay separate. It is possible for them to merge together, to “jointly as a team” construct a single overall and often fairly ordinary-looking human body. The brain might be constructed by one member of the team; the heart might be constructed by the other member of the team. And so on.

      This process is called “chimerism”, and it is basically just another variation on the theme of a “society of organisms”. The relevant fact here is, the merging of the two original organisms occurs several days after conception, much like the formation of identical twins/triplets. When exactly do we say that this chimeric human life began? The two conceptions might have occurred hours apart!

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:41 pm

      So what? What’s your point/

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:43 pm

      I am sorry you are too stupid to comprehend what I wrote.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:43 pm

      Oh, yes, you’re right. LOL

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:53 pm

      I know I am.

    • tsara

      December 3, 2013 at 1:15 am

      This atheist groks how words work. Abortion doesn’t kill a human being unless your definition of ‘human being’ is worthless.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 21, 2013 at 7:45 pm

      So, it is ok to kill your child if God commands you to right? Or to kill millions of children if God commands – because he owns them and you, right?

    • Guest

      November 23, 2013 at 3:48 am

      God created that uterus.

    • Kaliane Moloch

      November 23, 2013 at 8:23 am

      Let him come and take it back then. I didn’t ask for it.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 8:55 am

      Nor did you ask for the gift of life itself.

      Yet, you have been blessed with life. Perhaps also with health?

      But, you would like to deprive others?

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 12:56 pm

      For every person who thinks that life is a blessing there is someone who hates the fact that they were born

      Forcing life on someone is forcing suffering on them and yes, death.

      if you create something, you kill it – because we all die

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 11:32 pm

      Fuck, yeah.

    • someone45

      November 16, 2013 at 12:57 pm

      I never want children and women do not become breeding cattle who are forced to become pregnant against their will just because they are married. Sex is very pleasurable, but forced pregnancy and child birth would be anything but.

    • Linda

      November 16, 2013 at 5:17 pm

      I feel sorry for any woman who never wants children. What a selfish, vacant life.

      Sex is very pleasurable because God, in His love, made it that way, in order to populate the earth with His children who will love Him and live forever with Him in Heaven.

      The precious gift of being able to bring new human life into the world, a human child nurtured and dwelling in the body of his or her own mother, is the greatest privilege God has ever bestowed on mankind. Mothers are co-creators with God in bringing human souls to Heaven.

      That you equate this awesome gift with “breeding cattle” speaks volumes about you and your repugnance against the sanctity of human life and the beauty and delight of children.

      You are a tragic soul and are in for a very empty existence on earth, and a terrible shock at the end of your life when you meet your Judge face-to-face and have to explain to Him why you spent your life rejecting His love and His graces.

    • someone45

      November 16, 2013 at 6:32 pm

      Why do you feel sorry for me? I am happy and I don’t have to deal with the misery of pregnancy, the pain of child birth, or a lifetime of misery having to deal with an annoying child. I am able to do what I want with me life and I don’t have a child holding me back.
      I also don’t have an empty existence on earth. I have my friends, my family, and my pets. I don’t need an annoying child to ruin my life. And no you are wrong a pregnancy is not a precious gift from god. Pregnancy is a curse when you don’t want it.

    • Linda

      November 16, 2013 at 7:02 pm

      I feel sorry for you because of your astounding selfishness. Self-adoration is the #1 recipe for self-destruction. Gee, I’m sure you were never an annoying child, were you?

      Pregnancy is a healthy and wonderful state for a woman. The cells of the child circulate in the mother’s body the rest of her life, strengthening her immune system, among other physiological benefits. But to reject the possibility of ever bearing a child is the saddest thing a woman could ever do. If you use contraception even for a couple years before a full-term pregnancy, you have just doubled your risk for breast cancer. All forms of hormonal contraceptives, including devices such as IUD’s, the Patch, etc. have been classified by the World Health Organization as Group 1 Carcinogens, “Definitely causing cancer of the breast, liver and cervix”. Then there’s blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, etc. from contraception.

      Sterilization is also unnatural, causing all sorts of complications.

      So denying your body the very condition for which it is designed will end up destroying your body. Not to mention the loneliness and emptiness that you will feel when you realize one day–and you will—that you never wanted the very person-or persons–who would love you more than anyone else on earth. You are depriving yourself of joy, happiness, love, responsibility, not to mention depriving yourself of eternal life. THAT’s the REAL CURSE.

    • someone45

      November 16, 2013 at 7:07 pm

      I’m not selfish at all. My family, friends, and animals can all tell you that. Just because I am not willing to go through the misery of pregnancy for an unwanted child doesn’t mean I am selfish.

      Pregnancy is anything but wonderful and healthy. Nine months of throwing up, not sleeping, not pooping, headaches, bloating, eclampsia, increased risked of diabetes, bloating, etc is not healthy. It is torture.

      Sorry but there is nothing all wrong with leaving a child free happy life. There is also no guarantee that a child will love their parent.

    • Linda

      November 16, 2013 at 9:37 pm

      There’s plenty wrong with living a selfish, child-deprived life: God’s 1st Commandment to mankind was: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.”

      Pregnancy is the best protection against many diseases, especially breast cancer. If pregnancy was so tortuous with 9 months of throwing up (9 months? where’d you get that one?), never sleeping, never pooping, 9 months of headaches, etc, etc., I guarantee you: NOBODY would want to get pregnant–EVER. If it’s that horrific, how do you account for the billions of women who have had more than one child over the history of the world, and have been extremely happy and satisfied?

      You’re a hopeless case, you’re so entrenched in self-love. Aren’t you grateful to your mother for not having the same selfishness that you do when it comes to having children? If she was a selfish as you are, you wouldn’t be here adoring yourself and all the pleasure you’re planning on lavishing upon yourself without the “burden” of children. If you think you can give yourself more love than children can, you are headed for a major let-down. But don’t take my word for it. Our choices have consequences… and yours will, too.

    • someone45

      November 16, 2013 at 9:43 pm

      No there is nothing at wrong with being child free. If your god (assuming he existed) really cared about people then he would want them to be happy. He would not want them to spend their entire life miserable raising a child they never wanted.
      My child-free life will not have consequences. I know several child free people who are extremely happy and fulfilled with what they decided to pursue.

      Pregnancy would be horrible and it would be a curse. It might not be nine entire months of the things I listed, but it would be at least some time of them and it would be nine months of insomnia.

      The women who have had babies suffered through it because they wanted kids. They knew in the end the would get something they wanted from it.

    • heather

      November 16, 2013 at 11:38 pm

      There is nothing wrong with wanting to live a child-free life. It is for you to decide. You are right there (though I disagree with abortion, I don’t think there is anything wrong with being responsible for your actions and still being child-free).

      I will say this. I have had three pregnancies (one miscarriage). While there were difficult moments, they were few and far between (with the exception of the miscarriage, which was one of the most difficult times of my life emotionally). Yes, there was some nausea, some back pain in the end of my first (only during labor for my second). The headaches didn’t bother me because I ate some chocolate and they went away (I stopped all other caffeine intake so the tiny bit of chocolate did the trick). No sleep trouble. I had gestational diabetes with my first child, but it can go away, and mine did.

      Labor was hard for my son because I didn’t dilate properly so they needed to induce me. For my daughter, however, everything went so smoothly I was back home and on my feet the following day. Both babies were over 8 lbs, which isn’t as big as some people’s but it wasn’t a “small” baby either…

      While some people do have some problems, there are many people who do not. You are well within your right to not want children. But it really isn’t as bad as it might seem. Children need a different form of attention than adults do, but they aren’t annoying.

      For the record, I never wanted children either. I had never been around them before having my son (now 4 years old) and thought it would change/hinder my life somehow (I am now in college full time – which I might not have done if I remained single and childless, so I have actually become more driven since starting a family). I was terrified of doing a horrible job as a parent. But I was wrong, and was pleasantly and wonderfully surprised. It isn’t a walk in the park, my son likes to play pranks so I am always on my toes, so I am not discrediting the potential hardships of parenting. I am just saying it isn’t as bad as you would imagine.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 2:32 pm

      Because happiness is the only thing that matters in life.

    • someone45

      November 17, 2013 at 3:08 pm

      It is one of the main things. What is the point of life if you know that you will spend the rest of it miserable and not ever be happy again. (which is what would happen if I had a kid)

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 4:09 pm

      The right not to be enslaved by others is what matters in life.

    • heather

      November 16, 2013 at 11:40 pm

      To Linda:Yes, I believe God blessed women with the ability to
      bear children, but I also believe that God created people who want
      different things out of life, and people whose lives take a different
      path than ours.
      While I disagree with abortion and feel that people
      should be accountable for their actions, people have a right to choose
      to not have children. Again, I feel that in order to do that, preventative measures should be taken, not abortion (just don’t want you to misunderstand me, I am very pro-life)!!!
      We should be respectful of all people and not
      accusative. We only know what we see online of them, after all. It is not our place to pass judgement- that is a way to reach someone.
      I share your sentiments about having and raising children though. It is a blessing

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 4:18 pm

      There’s plenty wrong with living a selfish, child-deprived life: God’s
      1st Commandment to mankind was: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the
      earth.”

      Does this mean you’re pro-rape pregnancy? Rapists impregnate women and make them happy?

      Pregnancy is the best protection against many diseases, especially breast cancer

      Pregnancy actually causes cancer due to excess estrogen and hormonal imbalances. And because pregnancy suppresses the immune system, it can make the woman vulnerable to many illnesses while pregnant, and after birth, the rebound of the immune system can result in the development of a variety of auto-immune diseases.

      If pregnancy was so tortuous with 9 months of throwing up (9 months? where’d you get that one?), never sleeping, never pooping, 9 months of headaches, etc, etc., I guarantee you: NOBODY would want to get pregnant–EVER

      Women do not enjoy the physical effects of pregnancy and they most definitely do not enjoy giving birth. Women get pregnant because they are eitiher forced to by pro-lifers such as you, or pressured into it by society that wants them to be mothers. Or because they simply want kids.

      You’re a hopeless case, you’re so entrenched in self-love

      Not wanting to be forced into gestational slavery is not ‘self-love’. Not wanting to have a child that you cannot give the proper amount of care and love to is not selfish.

      Aren’t you grateful to your mother for not having the same selfishness that you do when it comes to having children?

      Pro-choicers would rather be WANTED children than punishments that were forced upon their mothers for the criminal act of having sex while female.

      Normal, frequent
      or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

      exhaustion (weariness
      common from first weeks)

      altered appetite
      and senses of taste and smell

      nausea and vomiting
      (50% of women, first trimester)

      heartburn and indigestion

      constipation

      weight gain

      dizziness and light-headedness

      bloating, swelling,
      fluid retention

      hemmorhoids

      abdominal cramps

      yeast infections

      congested, bloody
      nose

      acne and mild skin
      disorders

      skin discoloration
      (chloasma, face and abdomen)

      mild to severe backache
      and strain

      increased headaches

      difficulty sleeping,
      and discomfort while sleeping

      increased urination
      and incontinence

      bleeding gums

      pica

      breast pain and
      discharge

      swelling of joints,
      leg cramps, joint pain

      difficulty sitting,
      standing in later pregnancy

      inability to take
      regular medications

      shortness of breath

      higher blood pressure

      hair loss

      tendency to anemia

      curtailment of ability
      to participate in some sports and activities

      infection
      including from serious and potentially fatal disease

      (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with
      non-pregnant women, and
      are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

      extreme pain on
      delivery

      hormonal mood changes,
      including normal post-partum depression

      continued post-partum
      exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section
      — major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
      fully recover)

      Normal, expectable,
      or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

      stretch marks (worse
      in younger women)

      loose skin

      permanent weight
      gain or redistribution

      abdominal and vaginal
      muscle weakness

      pelvic floor disorder
      (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers
      and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal
      incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life — aka prolapsed utuerus,
      the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)

      changes to breasts

      varicose veins

      scarring from episiotomy
      or c-section

      other permanent
      aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed
      by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

      increased proclivity
      for hemmorhoids

      loss of dental and
      bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

      higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

      newer research indicates
      microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and
      mother (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

      Occasional complications
      and side effects:

      complications of episiotomy

      spousal/partner
      abuse

      hyperemesis gravidarum

      temporary and permanent
      injury to back

      severe
      scarring
      requiring later surgery
      (especially after additional pregnancies)

      dropped (prolapsed)
      uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
      pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
      and enterocele)

      pre-eclampsia
      (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated
      with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

      eclampsia (convulsions,
      coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

      gestational diabetes

      placenta previa

      anemia (which
      can be life-threatening)

      thrombocytopenic
      purpura

      severe cramping

      embolism
      (blood clots)

      medical disability
      requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
      many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
      or baby)

      diastasis recti,
      also torn abdominal muscles

      mitral valve stenosis
      (most common cardiac complication)

      serious infection
      and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

      hormonal imbalance

      ectopic pregnancy
      (risk of death)

      broken bones (ribcage,
      “tail bone”)

      hemorrhage
      and

      numerous other complications
      of delivery

      refractory gastroesophageal
      reflux disease

      aggravation of pre-pregnancy
      diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5%
      of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment
      prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

      severe post-partum
      depression and psychosis

      research now indicates
      a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments,
      including “egg harvesting” from infertile women and donors

      research also now
      indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity
      in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

      research also indicates
      a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary
      and cardiovascular disease

      Less common (but
      serious) complications:

      peripartum cardiomyopathy

      cardiopulmonary
      arrest

      magnesium toxicity

      severe hypoxemia/acidosis

      massive embolism

      increased intracranial
      pressure, brainstem infarction

      molar pregnancy,
      gestational trophoblastic disease
      (like a pregnancy-induced
      cancer)

      malignant arrhythmia

      circulatory collapse

      placental abruption

      obstetric fistula

      More
      permanent side effects:

      future infertility

      permanent disability

      death.

      ———
      Pregnancy has been the #1 killer of women throughout history

    • Kat

      November 24, 2013 at 12:34 am

      Can I just but in and say that you just added to the word of God, which is a horrid sin to which as you loving sister in Christ must be corrected. God never commanded us in the 10 Commandments of Moses to be Fruitful and Multiply. So do not call them commandments. It was an order by God , mostly to the animals from what I’ve gathered. Also, you failed to say previously so ill just add that The Lord made sex a wonderful and passionate thing so that a man and his wife may share an loving nd close relationship with each other , nothing that is sexual between a husbands and wife is wrong and God made that so that we may give ourselves the act of love when we are married. That is why it is pleasure full. In the book of Ephesians, I so believe, God give specific instructions as to how an man and wife should treat each other. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with abstaining from sex or choosing not to have children. The lady may not want any right now, but who is to say that she won’t change her mind later? I do not want children at the moment but that is because I wish to discover myself, travel, and reach the goals that I have set for myself in life. Sometimes it could be that the choice to refrain from conceiving a child is because the woman or couple are not mentally or physically ready or capable of handling one at the moment, or it could be that the woman or couple are not financially as stable as they would like to be before they conseive

    • Linda

      November 24, 2013 at 6:30 pm

      Kat:

      You might want to read the first chapter of the book of Genesis (which I doubt you have read), before accusing me of committing a “horrid sin” by “adding to the word of God”, for which you feel the need to correct me. Read my post again. I never said that God told Moses in the Ten Commandments to “be fruitful and multiply”.

      I said that God’s 1st Commandment to mankind was “to be fruitful and multiply”. This occurs in the book of Genesis immediately after God created Adam and Eve: “God created man in His own image. Male and female He created them. And God blessed them and told them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over all the animals: the fish in the sea and the birds in the air and all creatures that walk on the earth.'”

      Further on in Genesis, “God blessed Noah and his sons. And God said to Noah’s sons: ‘Be fruitful and increase your numbers on earth’.

      Yes, God did indeed make sexual intercourse pleasurable–in order to “multiply and fill the earth” with God’s children who will give Him glory for all eternity, provided they obey all of His commandments. Of course sexual intimacy is wonderful in marriage and is a cohesive force that binds a couple for life, but the act of sexual intercourse was designed by God for the procreation of children.

      If a couple is not ready for children (a married couple, that is), then Natural Family Planning is used and is not offensive to God, provided that it is not being used for selfish purposes: to go on vacations without kids, to enjoy material possessions as long as possible, etc. “Children are an inheritance from the Lord”. Children are a precious gift from God, and should NEVER be thought of as a “disease” to avoid by taking a pill every day. Children are the crowning achievement of marriage. A marriage that is intentionally child-free is not a valid marriage in the eyes of God.

      If a woman wants to travel, discover herself, reach her life’s goals, that’s fine. Abstaining from sex, being chaste, is the only acceptable means to “not conceiving a child”. To use artificial contraception in order to thwart the conceiving of a child is an intrinsic evil (whether married or single), condemned in Scripture, and condemned by every single Christian denomination for 1,930 years.

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 9:25 pm

      Holy fuck how does this not have any downvotes?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 4:11 pm

      Pregnancy is a healthy and wonderful state for a woman

      False.

      Pregnancy maims and kills.

      Over 1.2 million women are permanently disabled from pregnancy per year in the USA alone.

      Over 580k women die per year, worldwide, from pregnancy.

      Pregnancy is not all fairy farts and unicorns.

      So denying your body the very condition for which it is designed will end up destroying your body.

      Naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural does not mean it is healthy.

    • MarcusFenix

      November 21, 2013 at 6:11 pm

      Would ask that you double check your stats a bit, and put them in perspective.

      First, according to the World Health Organization…580k women don’t die every year from child birth. From their report, September of 2013:

      http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs334/en/

      “Every year, approximately 287 000 women die due to complications
      in pregnancy and childbirth, 99% of them are in developing countries.”

      WHO is calling it at half of what you are. If you have other, equally weighted stats, I’d be happy to look at them, but the WHO fact sheet is directly contradicting your numbers. It does say it’s the number two killer of women of child-bearing age* (see below), but that 99% of those deaths are in undeveloped countries. That leaves approximately 2,900 (rounding as their stats did, but could be 99.4%, and so on) deaths in developed countries, such as the US, that have proper medical facilities and quality of care, making it rather rare in those areas.

      *The total number includes females age 15-59, because it lumps reproductive age and adult females together, which would lower the overall number since a 59 year old having a child is also incredibly rare and adding in the more rare numbers, especially higher up, skews the percentage.

      Also, specifically…worldwide, it lists preterm birth complications as the 9th reason, not the second. Graph, first one, halfway down the page. 16/100,000, while #8 is listed as hypertensive heart disease, at 17/100,000. The number 2 reason worldwide for death in women is stroke.

      As an interesting contrast, worldwide…you’re more likely to die from COPD than from child birth. Here’s the chart for worldwide deaths, and causes.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

      “Over 1.2 million women are permanently disabled from pregnancy per year in the USA alone.”

      I’ve seen you use this stat, but other than links to where you’ve said it in other forums, having trouble finding a clear link for this one. Citation requested, please.

      I did see a page from prb.org which had some claims on it, from 2002 (and so the stats certainly can be different) but nothing locked down. It still had the “500,000 die from” bit…but the WHO stat sheet up there contradicts that immediately, and is a much stronger factual source, along with also being much more current.

      Also, from the same article:

      “Maternal disability (or morbidity) can be defined as any illness or injury caused or aggravated by pregnancy or childbirth. The disability can be acute, affecting a woman during or immediately after childbirth, or chronic, lasting for months, years, or a lifetime. The vast majority of maternal disabilities stem from health complications that are a direct result of pregnancy or childbirth. These “direct causes” include severe bleeding, infection, obstructed or prolonged labor, pregnancy-induced hypertension (high blood pressure), and unsafe abortion”

      http://www.prb.org/Publications/Reports/2002/HiddenSufferingDisabilitiesFromPregnancyandChildbirthinLDCs.aspx

      Notice that prolonged labor gets lumped in there.as a “disability”. Infection wouldn’t be from the child directly, but from medical facilities, staff, visitors, i.e…some other source. The pregnancy itself wouldn’t cause the infection. Also, as a last bit, notice that unsafe abortions get lumped in the end there too. More directly, infections from any source aren’t a direct indicator to pregnancy, anymore than the occuring of sepsis at the same hospital.

      The next paragraph continues:

      “Disabilities can also be caused by illnesses that are aggravated by
      pregnancy, such as anemia, malaria, cardiac disease, hepatitis,
      tuberculosis, sexually transmitted infections (STIs, including
      HIV/AIDS), and diabetes. Interactions between illnesses and
      complications can also cause a disability, making this a particularly
      difficult problem to quantify.”

      Hard to quantify. That’s always good to hear, right? Past that, these disabilities are simply aggrevated, meaning they certainly aren’t being helped any, but…they were already present and accounted for before the woman was pregnant. The pregnancy, in that case, could not create such a disability when it was already present. If that’s being lumped into the the “pregnacy caused the disability” pile…it’s factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest to claim cause and effect when the effect was well in place before the stated cause.

      Food for thought. 🙂

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 9:26 pm

      And, seriously, no downvotes here, either? wtf, Internet?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 4:21 pm

      That you equate this awesome gift with “breeding cattle” speaks volumes
      about you and your repugnance against the sanctity of human life and the
      beauty and delight of children.

      Forcing women to do nothing but ‘make babies’ is to treat them as mere livestock.

      Just because someone has the parts necessary to make a fetus does not mean that this is what they are for.

      For anti-choicers, the fact that someone can make a baby means that making babies is what she is for. People mistake the term “objectification” to mean “looking at with lust,” but what it actually means is “reducing someone to an object to
      be used.” Sexual objectification is assuming that because women turn you on, they are for sex, instead of a person whose sexuality should be an expression of their agency. What anti-choicers engage in is reproductive objectification. Women are among an array of objects to be used. The refrigerator is for storing food. The bookshelf is for holding books. The woman is for making babies. You no more give her a choice in the matter than you would give your refrigerator veto power over what food it hold because it didn’t like your method of shopping.

      You are pro forced rape pregnancy, aren’t you?

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:40 pm

      Not answering any Inquisitors.

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 9:29 pm

      The ‘breeding cattle’ comment was in reference to forced pregnancy, and, as such, was on point and not at all inappropriate.

      I am not defined by my uterus, and if your God exists, he’s a jackass for giving me one.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 24, 2013 at 4:35 pm

      FALSE, because, for humans, the primary purpose of sex is most definitely not reproduction. The simplest proof involves the fact that while females of most other species tend to engage in sex only when they are fertile, human females can indulge in sex almost any time. Humanity would not have Evolved that significant distinction, from other species, if it
      wasn’t important. So, for humans, the primary purpose of sex is actually something known as “pair bonding”.

      Basically, human infants are so helpless, compared to other
      newborns, that caring for one severely handicaps the mother. If she can attract long-term assistance, then the chances of survival, for both herself and her child, increase greatly. And it is well known that sex is a powerful attractant. If it happens to have the side-effect of also making more offspring, well, each attracted sex-participant is, theoretically, still right there, helping out, and still enjoying sex.

      A participant who practices the trick-her-and-run tactic is taking the risk that his offspring won’t survive due to lack-of-assistance, but he tries to compensate by having lots of offspring –”R-strategy” thinking, basically. As previously mentioned (#7), if a society wants to rid itself of that tactic over the long run, then all it need do is ensure none of any practitioner’s offspring survive, not even until birth! Overall,
      these things are very simple, very logical, very effective –and very destructive to that argument against abortion.

    • Linda

      November 24, 2013 at 6:40 pm

      Whose body, whose choice? Did this baby choose to be burned to death by a prostaglandin abortion? How much suffering do you think this child endure as she was being burned to death for 4 hours?

    • Linda

      November 24, 2013 at 6:42 pm

      My photo was omitted from this website. Look up “images of abortion” (I doubt you pro-death fanatics really want to see what you’re actually advocating), and let Truth hit you between the eyes.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 24, 2013 at 6:52 pm

      Do you masturbate to pix of stillborn fetuses? Because that is what the majority of so-called ‘fetal gore porn’ pix that you sick fucks use are of.

    • Linda

      November 25, 2013 at 10:37 am

      Hey, Lucifer: Wrong, buddy. Stillborn babies don’t come out burned, dismembered, bloody, macerated, skulls crushed, mutilated, etc.

      You’d probably get your jollies from viewing an abortion in progress, Lucifer, since this is what you do for a living: tell mothers to murder their offspring.

      granthamcollection.com is all the evidence needed to disprove your satanic lie that the pics of murdered babies are simply stillborn. But you, Lucifer, are “a liar, the father of lies, and a murderer from the beginning.”

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 25, 2013 at 3:54 pm

      Wrong, buddy. Stillborn babies don’t come out burned, dismembered, bloody, macerated, skulls crushed, mutilated, etc.

      As I told you, saline abortions have fallen out of practise. Learn to read.

      And the purpose of late term abortions is for *medical necessity*

      Get that through your thick skull.

      Furthermore, an intact DnE was outlawed by the partial birth abortion act. The purpose of an intact DnE was to give the parents something to mourn – because an abortion that late is undertaken in cases of severe fetal anomaly.

      But because you pro-lifers campaigned to get the procedure banned, those fetuses are now removed in pieces.

      You can thank the pro-life movement for crushed skulls and ripped body parts on late term fetii.

      granthamcollection.com is all the evidence needed to disprove your satanic lie that the pics of murdered babies are simply stillborn. But you, Lucifer, are “a liar,the father of lies, and a murderer from the beginning.”

      Yeah. Big deal. They are smaller than a dime and all you see are feet and legs. Not the fact that the rest of it looks like an alien with a tail.

    • Linda

      November 25, 2013 at 11:20 pm

      Using another user name, Dildo?

      Saline abortions are done by the thousands in the U.S., so you’re lying about that. Late term abortions are done all over the U.S. every day. Think: Leroy Carhart, and Warren Hearn, just to name two.

      Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, along with the American Medical Association, confirmed that there is NEVER a case where a late term baby has to be killed to save the life of the mother. If the mom’s life is in danger, all doctors have to do is to separate the baby from the mother, a.k.a.= delivery.

      As for granthamcollection.com, you either didn’t watch the VIDEOS or you watched the VIDEOS but refuse to comment on them. And who cares how tiny the feet and legs are of the murdered babies? They’re the same people that they’d be if their feet and legs were one inch bigger. Plus, the smaller they are, the more it proves that first trimester fetuses are human beings, little bitty human beings.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 25, 2013 at 11:35 pm

      Saline abortions are done by the thousands in the U.S.

      Intrauterine instillation (of all kinds) declined from 10.4% of all legal abortions in the U.S. in 1972 to 1.7% in 1985, falling to 0.8% of the total incidence of induced abortion in the United States during 2002, and 0.1% in 2007.

      Once in common practice, abortion by intrauterine instillation has fallen out of favor, due to its association with serious adverse effects and its replacement by procedures which require less time and cause less physical discomfort

      Source: Pazol, Karen, Zane, Suzanne B., Parker,
      Wilda Y., Hall, Laura R., Gamble, Sonya B., Hamdan, Saeed, Berg, Cynthia, Cook, Douglas A., Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control. (2011-02-25). Abortion Surveillance – United States, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Retrieved 2011-08-24.

      confirmed that there is NEVER a case where a late term baby has to be killed to save the life of the mother. If the mom’s life is in danger, all doctors have to do is to separate the baby from the mother, a.k.a.= delivery.

      Not when labour will kill her. sweetie. And the safety of the woman is paramount.

      And who cares how tiny the feet and legs are of the murdered babies?

      Animals have feet too. I don’t see you crying about how they are tortured and slaughtered.

      Plus, the smaller they are, the more it proves that first trimester fetuses are human beings, little bitty human beings

      It doesn’t prove a thing. Human beings have brains, fetii do not.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 25, 2013 at 11:43 pm

      Oh, and btw, induced labour and/or c-section before natural birth IS a fucking abortion you nitwit.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 25, 2013 at 11:59 pm

      Right? That’s what’s so goddawful sick. Thanks to the forced-gestation idiot brigade, when a woman cannot withstand a trial of labor, the doctor has no choice but to pull the fetus out piece-by-piece with a D&E, rather than intact with a D&X. The D&X allowed the parents to hold their doomed baby, say goodybe, grieve over and bury the doomed child. Forced-birthers seem to be motivated by one thing, and it’s not “concern for life.” Rather, it’s a sick desire to make women and children suffer.

    • tsara

      December 3, 2013 at 12:02 am

      Lucifer is a lovely name <3

    • BJ Survivor

      November 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm

      Damn, that’s hideous. By forced-birther “logic” childbirth should be banned based on its grotesqueness. As should all surgeries, since they’re bloody and disgusting. And menstruation, especially, since that’s what the typical abortion looks like.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 25, 2013 at 2:49 pm

      If they are going to show pix of dead fetuses, I am going to show pix of what pregnancy does to a woman.

    • tsara

      December 2, 2013 at 11:59 pm

      Ick, that’s worse than the penis-to-vagina transformation surgery I just watched.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 3, 2013 at 12:31 am

      Yes, but the pro-lifers here have promised us, repeatedly, that pregnancy really is safe and that disability is something that you risk when you choose to have sex!

    • BJ Survivor

      November 24, 2013 at 6:48 pm

      The vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester via medication or suction aspiration, in which the embryonic sac is expelled whole.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 24, 2013 at 6:55 pm

      Notice how when you provide them with a good argument they come back with BUT YOU ARE GOING TO TORTURE THE BAYBEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FOR FUNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!111111

    • BJ Survivor

      November 24, 2013 at 8:48 pm

      Right? And they STILL think that person would be an appropriate parent? WTF?

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 24, 2013 at 6:51 pm

      alright dumbfuck, here are some FACTS for you:

      1) typical abortion: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls6w7phG8f1qi68z9.jpg

      2) 91% of abortions are before 13 weeks, 61% before 9 weeks. 1.5% at 20 weeks and above and this is because many complications are not detectable until 20 weeks and above – complications such as anencephaly hydracephaly etc. And of course, the woman’s health.

      3) Once in common practice, abortion by intrauterine instillation has fallen out of favor, due to its association with serious adverse effects and its replacement by procedures which require less time and cause less physical discomfor

      Trupin, Suzanne R. (2006). Abortion. Retrieved August 14, 2006.

      4) fetus cannot feel pain: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900885-2

      5) Whose body, whose choice?

      IRRELEVANT, because the body that gets aborted is not a person, like a woman is a person. Only an animal gets aborted. Such removal is equivalent to medically removing any other type of unwanted assaulting animal, such as a guinea worm. It is sheer prejudice to think that the human-ness of an unwanted animal assailant makes a difference.

      Not to mention, a cancer is another type of human-celled assailant, and almost no-one tries to prevent it from being medically removed. There is also something called a “hydatidiform mole”, which is one of the ways defective DNA and/or Murphy’s Law can cause a conception to go wrong.
      It might even be noted that an unborn human is very similar to a cancer or a hydatidiform mole in certain respects: All three are human-celled growths, the woman’s body has no control over the growth of any of them, and all three commit the assaults of taking resources from the woman’s body, and dumping toxic biowaste products into her body.

      You’re welcome, you ignorant fucktard.

    • Prolifer101

      November 12, 2013 at 7:40 pm

      Then what those women should do is the best thing to not get pregnant, and it has proven to work, don’t have sex

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 7:47 pm

      Nobody is forced, “to have babies against their will.”

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:20 pm

      If you force a woman to give birth you are forcing her to have a baby against her will.

    • Kaliane Moloch

      December 1, 2013 at 8:50 pm

      Yes they are. If you forcibly prevent a woman from aborting, you’ve done exactly that.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:04 pm

      Nobody is forced to have a baby against her will — unless she is raped.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:17 pm

      Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is forcing her to give BIRTH which is dangerous and can maim and kill the woman.

      Do you think that rape victims should be allowed to have abortions since they didn’t ‘consent’ to pregnancy?

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 2, 2013 at 1:45 pm

      Do you support abortion in cases of rape, or would you force them to carry to term as well?

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 7:04 pm

      I’m not forcing anyone to do anything.

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 2, 2013 at 7:34 pm

      You’d like the law to force them.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 8:44 am

      It isn’t against their will. Everybody knows how and why moms get pregnant.

    • Kaliane Moloch

      December 2, 2013 at 11:20 am

      The sex is. The pregnancy is not.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 12:51 pm

      Would you permit abortion in the case of rape?

    • Megan Sass

      November 15, 2013 at 11:02 pm

      Yes. We were all a collection of cells before we were born. Before I was born, I was not a being capable of living or thinking on my own. I was a collection of cells. And had I been aborted, I would not be sorry about it now. I would simply have never existed.

    • Linda

      November 16, 2013 at 5:08 pm

      Humanity is not defined by what we are capable of thinking. If you were aborted, you DID exist, you simply would be a murdered human being. People who are murdered, no matter how old they are, don’t “not exist” just because they’re dead.

    • Dissgruntled

      November 17, 2013 at 2:34 pm

      You would have existed. No one may know you, but you would still have existed. You would have been, in your mind, “just a bunch of cells” but your existence would have still happened.

    • Quis ut Deus

      November 17, 2013 at 4:09 pm

      Nope, Megan would not have existed.

      A clump of tissue that is the potential Megan would have existed, but the actual true Megan who is posting here would not have existed.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:03 pm

      Lies and denial.

      It’s all about pretending there is no second person there —– only the mom. That pretense makes it earlier to kill that second person, who is too small and helpless to speak for herself or himself, or to fight back.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:15 pm

      A microscopic clump of undifferentiated tissue is not a real person.

      People have brains.

      People are not microscopic genetic blueprint.

      No, honey, a genetic blueprint is not a human being. It becomes one, but it doesn’t start out as one.

      Besides, if you want a zygote to have *equal* rights to the woman, then that means it does not have the right to use her body for it’s own personal gain – just as no born child has the right to use it’s parents body for blood and tissue.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 8:33 am

      No, a new person is there.. It is NOT a “blueprint”.

      Does the blueprint grow up to be a house?

      “use her body for . . . personal gain??” Tee, hee, good one.

      That seems to be based on some sort of trespassing standard, like in the common law of property. The mom’s uterus is there only for one reason.

      And, the mom and the new boy or girl are not COMPETITORS — except in Pro-Abort World.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 1:21 pm

      No, a new person is there.. It is NOT a “blueprint”.

      No, sweetie, a zygote is in fact a genetic blueprint. Your ignorance is unbecoming. I suggest you study embryology before talking out of your ass.

      The mom’s uterus is there only for one reason.

      So you are pro-forced pregnancy from rape? Anatomy is destiny/ Is that what you are saying?

      A woman does not lose control of her organs when she is pregnant. They are still hers. She can, at any time, remove any being that is using her body against her will, even if it will die without her organs. Nobody and nothing has a right to use a person’s body against that person’s will. Not you, not my child, not my sister, not my husband, and not my fetus. If you think that a fetus’s right to life trumps a woman’s right to control her very self, you are saying that women are not actually people. People get to control their bodies; it is a basic human right that trumps other people’s lives all the time. It’s why we don’t just chase you down, tie you kicking and screaming to a hospital bed, and remove some blood and a bit of liver for transplant that will save another person. If a fetus gets to take that right away from a woman, then you think a woman isn’t a person.

      “use her body for . . . personal gain??” Tee, hee, good one.
      And, the mom and the new boy or girl are not COMPETITORS — except in Pro-Abort World.

      A zygote literally drills into a woman’s uterus, through the flesh and into a blood vessel so major the woman’s body cannot shut it down. It sucks blood and nutrients into itself, expelling its wastes into the woman’s bloodstream for her kidneys and liver to deal with. It injects her with hormones that raise her blood pressure, blood sugar, and suppress her immune system. None of these things are healthy- high blood pressure, high blood sugar, and low immune system are things we usually try to treat, and they can all kill or cause permanent damage (pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and various infections).

      (as I have explained above, with numerous citations)

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 7:10 pm

      Yes, you’re right. God bless.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:32 am

      For the sake of argument, let’s take your derpy insistence on dehumanizing pre-born human life as reasonable, which it is obviously not, the “genetic blueprint” that is a human zygote is both living and completely unique to the individual that person will become if nothing impedes its natural development.

      If someone had snuffed out your unique genetic blueprint before you made it out of the womb, you wouldn’t have existed at all.

      i would say that your own ignorance is unbecoming but given what I’ve learned of you, I feel that your ignorance is entirely in keeping with the person that you are.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 1:26 pm

      If you want to educate yourself, you can start here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

      And here:

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/m/meiosis.htm

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 7:06 pm

      I have already educated myself. I don’t need your help.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 7:08 pm

      So you can lecture me on stem cells, epigenetics, transcription factors, methylation and gene expression?

      Do tell, smartie pants.

      I await your vast knowledge.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 7:16 pm

      I don’t have to lecture on that.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 7:18 pm

      Well you should, since you are claiming to be fully educated in the field of embryology, developmental biology, epigentics and everything that comes with it 🙂

      Show me how I’m wrong, cupcake. Prove Professor Robert Sapolsky wrong, why don’t you.

      Go for it.

      Flex your vast intellect.

      I am patient.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 7:26 pm

      You’re making me hungry for cupcakes!

      You know that abortion kills a little son or daughter. I’m not a professor, so of course I can’t prove anything in the hard sciences.

      BUT — whatever institute of higher learning houses you, probably also houses some pro-life scientists, as well.

      Perhaps THEY could show you how you’re wrong?

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 7:32 pm

      Perhaps THEY could show you how you’re wrong?

      Pro-life scientists tend to ignore epigenetics and transcription factors and gene expression and they stick to the belief that a zygote is a tiny baby that simply ‘grows larger over time’. Which is false, because the great Richard Dawkins and Robert Sapolsky and many other leading geneticists have proven that this is not the case.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 7:48 pm

      Still waiting for those cupcakes.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 7:50 pm

      Why do you refuse to answer a simple question?

      For one who feels SO STRONGLY that abortion is murder, you sure do seem hesitant to suggest that the women who commit the murders should *ever* spend time in jail!

      Suspicious indeed!

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 8:27 pm

      http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/why-is-human-childbirth-so-painful

      Still waiting for you to answer the question. Since you regard abortion to be murder.

      why would you let a baby killer walk free Diana?

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 7:50 pm

      “Pro-life scientists tend to ignore epigenetics and transcription factors
      and gene expression . . “.~~~

      What does that mean?

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 7:51 pm

      I thought you told me that you were fully educated in embryology and thus did not NEED to be educated by watching the youtube videos of Stanford genetics professor Robert Sapolsky?

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 2, 2013 at 8:04 pm

      As you’re so fond of saying, ‘look it up’.

    • tsara

      December 3, 2013 at 1:29 am

      I WOULD CLAW MY UTERUS AND THE EMBRYO OR FETUS OUT OF MY BODY WITH MY FINGERNAILS IF I HAD NO OTHER OPTION. NOTHING GETS TO BE IN MY BODY WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. NOTHING.
      My organs exist only for the purposes I want them to. Sure, they could serve other functions, but my mind is what gives them purpose. My uterus, my purpose; fuck God and Mother Nature.

    • DianaG2

      December 3, 2013 at 7:51 pm

      Alrighty then, dear.

      Good luck with that.

    • tsara

      December 3, 2013 at 7:54 pm

      Your comment mashed a whole bunch of my buttons. Your condescension here is not helping.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:23 am

      You and your buttons should butt out. You lacing the thread with your emotionally unstable anti-life stream-of-consciousness does nothing to help the debate.

    • tsara

      December 4, 2013 at 3:38 am

      I exist and my buttons exist. People with mental health issues exist.
      Things that pro-life people want to do — change the laws surrounding abortion, change the culture, etc. — will not make people with psychiatric issues go away. Laws must take that into account, and if you want your views to be taken seriously, you must take that into account.

      Further, I am, y’know, making actual points which can be addressed.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:51 am

      Well, your points are a bit elementary and made a bit sloppily and with a lot of emotional bias and so on but, sure, you’re making a sort of point or two here and there. I would suggest however, that your perspective is a bit short-sighted and not very complete. It’s actually the pro-death/pro-abortion lobby that has been on a jihad to change the laws of the land to facilitate killing the unborn at whim. I’m more in the position of wanting to preserve our laws as they’ve been for the past two hundred and fifty years or where they’ve been recently changed, I’d at least like to reform them to reflect a more humane approach to the unborn.

    • tsara

      December 4, 2013 at 4:13 am

      “with a lot of emotional bias”
      And you’re a font of cold, clear logic.

      “It’s actually the pro-death/pro-abortion lobby that has been on a jihad to change the laws of the land to facilitate killing the unborn at whim.”
      Hah, I wish.

      “I’m more in the position of wanting to preserve our laws as they’ve been for the past two hundred and fifty years”
      …which makes abortion legal. There were no laws on abortion until the late 19th century.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 4:18 am

      Oooh… It’s “the law of the land” now, so suck it up all you old white men conservative Christian right-winger tea baggers… Hmmm. Where have I heard that before? So funny the involuntary racism, chauvinism and bigotry that crop up from leftists and their fellow-travelers all the time.

      Well okay, if you want to rest on that argument, you should also consider that slavery was the law of the land at one point and survived a Supreme Court challenge even. So…

    • tsara

      December 4, 2013 at 4:23 am

      That… has nothing to do with what I said. You are the one who said you wanted to preserve the laws of 250 years ago. I just pointed out that legal restrictions on abortion did not exist at your preferred time period, so your goals wrt abortion laws are inconsistent with your goals wrt general laws.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 4:29 am

      No.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 4, 2013 at 3:20 pm

      You’re boring.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 4, 2013 at 3:20 pm

      You’re boring.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 3, 2013 at 7:57 pm

      You’re an idiot.

      Now go cry to your friends.

    • DianaG2

      December 3, 2013 at 7:58 pm

      LOL

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 3, 2013 at 8:00 pm

      Dumber than a fencepost is more apt, actually.

      Calling you an idiot is an insult to idiots…

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:28 am

      Calling you anything is an insult to anything.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:26 am

      Quid infantes sumus? Grow up already.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 9:12 am

      “undifferentiated?” Look it up.

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 2, 2013 at 9:56 am

      Why? Do you not know what it means?

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:33 am

      Quid infantes sumus?

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 4, 2013 at 7:40 am

      Catapultam habeo. isi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 4, 2013 at 3:21 pm

      I always knew you were secretly Joseph O Polanco!!

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 4, 2013 at 3:21 pm

      I always knew you were secretly Joseph O Polanco!!

    • yippeekayay

      December 6, 2013 at 6:03 pm

      latin syntax much? It’s “catapultam habeam” and I wish you did, so you could launch yourself into space.

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 6, 2013 at 6:26 pm

      Actually, you’re wrong. But we thank you for being a pretentious idiot.

    • yippeekayay

      December 6, 2013 at 6:49 pm

      I thank you not to thank me for anything, least of all for being right, which I am. (I’m also vain and immature enough not to let you have the last word so you might as well run along now. beat it. hiya! scram! go on back to your life-hating hole and crawl into it. you won’t have long to wait. human life is fleating and when you’re gone, no one will remember you.).

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 6, 2013 at 6:53 pm

      Yes, I know you’re vain and immature. And yes, you’re still wrong. But thank you for giving us all a good laugh.

    • yippeekayay

      December 9, 2013 at 8:06 pm

      Spoken with the smug self-assured arrogance of a genocidal maniac (i.e. a completely closed-minded pro-abortionist).

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 9, 2013 at 8:30 pm

      Sorry, YipYip, but do you think you could up the histrionics just a tad? That wasn’t quite shrill enough to be really entertaining.

    • yippeekayay

      December 9, 2013 at 8:37 pm

      I’m not trailer trash like you, I guess.

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 9, 2013 at 8:44 pm

      Still not good enough. Come on, Yipper. Entertain me.

    • marshmallow

      December 9, 2013 at 9:29 pm

      Tell her that she is a whore.

    • ansuz

      December 9, 2013 at 9:53 pm

      …and this is the person who called my tone ‘hostile and combative’.

    • marshmallow

      December 9, 2013 at 10:11 pm

      His entire m.o is to be as aggressive as possible.

    • ansuz

      December 9, 2013 at 10:16 pm

      I think it’s hilarious that he was dismissing one of my comments because I used the word ‘fuck’ when the unspoken second word of his username is ‘motherfucker’.
      I suppose its being unspoken makes all the difference, to him.

      EDIT: and somehow calling someone ‘trailer trash’ and a ‘genocidal maniac’ is better than saying ‘I don’t give a fuck […]’.

    • marshmallow

      December 9, 2013 at 10:18 pm

      I think he just throws lots of shit hoping something will stick.

    • ansuz

      December 9, 2013 at 10:19 pm

      Probably.

      (Whoa. My autocorrect will change ‘prolly’ to ‘probably’.)

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 6, 2013 at 7:40 pm

      It’s habeo, dumbass.

      Now lick the shit off my dick.

    • BJ Survivor

      November 21, 2013 at 4:43 pm

      We were all a collection of cells before we were born. Before I was born, I was not a being capable of living or thinking on my own. I was a collection of cells. And had I been aborted, I would not be sorry about it now. I would simply have never existed.

      And this really is the crux of it. Forced-birthers are motivated primarily by misogyny, compounded by existential angst. They are apparently such special little snowflakes that their mothers, obviously, must be forced to gestate and give birth, even if it permanently maims or kills them. Because that’s what women are for, dontcha know.

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 8:38 am

      How often has a mom been permanently maimed or killed in childbirth or pregnancy here in the U.S., or another FIRST WORLD country, that you know of? Citations, please.

      Like I said, only in Pro-Abort World does the mom COMPETE with the little unborn son or daughter.

      If you care so much about eliminating misogyny, why are you not concerned with all the UNBORN WOMEN who are killed by abortion? At least half of regular abortions could be killing little girls randomly, couldn’t they?

      That isn’t even mentioning GENDER-SELECTIVE abortion.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 1:17 pm

      http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/10/torn-apart-by-childbirth

      Many women suffer in silence – often for years. “I’ve met women in their 50s at hospital appointments who are now seeking help for problems relating to childbirth decades ago,” reports Cyee on Mumsnet. “Some have lived with faecal incontinence all that time and done nothing because
      they thought they were freaks and because of the stigma.”

      “One study found that between 25 and 40% of patients will have a birth injury of some kind if you actually look for it,” she says. “It’s much more widespread than anyone believes.”

      “That means each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory
      distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death.”

      Data modeling suggesting 21/100,000 US maternal mortality rate

      In 2004/2005, 1.7 million women per year suffered adverse health effects

      http://search.worldbank.org /data?qterm=us%20maternal%20mortality%20rate&language=EN

      http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/campaigns/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right/maternal-health-in-the-us

      http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/why-are-so-many-u-s-women-dying-during-childbirth/article_dd916b4b-38f0-5bae-ba42-ddee636e4cf4.html

      Like I said, only in Pro-Abort World does the mom COMPETE with the little unborn son or daughter.

      The fetus competes with the woman from the moment of implantation. It suppresses her immune system (which can lead to autoimmune diseases such as MS after birth), it takes sugar from her blood (which can lead to permanent diabetes) and it rips apart her body during birth.

      If the pain involved in childbirth were induced by other means, it would generally be recognized as a form of torture, and a nation that required women to undergo it would be found in violation of Article V of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

      Furtheremore, women menstruate as a form of self-defense against an embryo that forcibly attaches itself to her blood vessels in order to suck out such nutrients as sugar and calcium.

      Did you know that women can also go blind, lose all of their teeth, and develop osteoperosis because the fetus takes all of the minerals from the woman’s body in order to construct itself?

      Furthermore, through something called ‘genomic imprinting’ the fetus is genetically programmed to grow as a big as possible – even if it comes at the expense of the mother’s health. From the perspective of the father’s genes, all that mattters is creating that baby. The health of the mother is immaterial. AS long as she can propagate the father’s genes by giving birth – even if it permanently maims and kills her.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3528014/

      “The mother and fetus have an adversarial relationship: mom’s best interest is to survive pregnancy to bearchildren again, and so her body tries to conserve resources for the long haul. The fetus, on the other hand, benefits from wresting as much from mom as it can, sometimes to the mother’s detriment. The fetus, for instance, manipulates the mother’s hormones to weaken the insulin response, so less sugar is taken up by mom’s cells, making more available for the fetus.”

      “Within the mammals, there is variation in how deeply the fetus sinks its placental teeth into the uterus. Some species are epithelochorial; the connection is entirely superficial. Others are endotheliochorial, in which the placenta pierces the uterine epithelium. And others, the most invasive, are hemochorial, and actually breach maternal blood vessels.
      Humans are hemochorial. All of the mammalian species that menstruate arealso hemochorial.

      That’s a hint. Menstruation is a consequence of self-defense. Femalesbuild up that thickened uterine lining to protect and insulate themselves from the greedy embryo and its selfish placenta. In species with especially invasive embryos, it’s too late to wait for the moment of implantation — instead, they build up the wall pre-emptively, before and in case of fertilization. Then, if fertilization doesn’t occur, the universal process of responding to declining progesterone levels by sloughing off the lining occurs.”

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 1:31 pm

      How often has a mom been permanently maimed or killed in childbirth or
      pregnancy here in the U.S., or another FIRST WORLD country, that you
      know of?

      Are you implying that you find abortion acceptable in third world countries because pregnancy is so much more dangerous there?

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 7:08 pm

      I’m not saying anything. I’ve already declared that I won’t be answering questions.

      But, I note that you have not answered MY question.

      I’ll add a second: How many women have been maimed or killed from LEGAL abortion.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 7:11 pm

      If you will recall, I asked my questions FIRST

      I asked them last night

      The fact that you refuse to answer some very simple questions puts your entire argument on very shaky ground

      If you truly believe abortion to be MURDER then you would have NO ISSUE being HONEST and straight up telling us that you think women who MURDER THEIR UNBORN BABY CHILDREN should spend some time in jail.

      Surely you would agree that if a woman hires a hitman to kill her 5 year old that she should go to jail? That if a woman shoots her 5 year old in the head that she should go to jail?

      You have given EVERY indication that yo consider a zygote/embryo/fetus to have the exact same moral value as a 5 year old.

      So why the heck won’t you give a straight answer?

      huh?

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 7:19 pm

      First of all, I HAVE answered that question at least twice, today and yesterday.

      Jail time (assuming there was any) would be for the abortionist, not for the mom.

      I don’t have anything to do with women who have aborted their babies IN THE PAST. That’s not my business, yet I feel very sad. I believe those women feel very sad, as well.

      I only hope and pray that abortion-minded moms will change that mind, and let their babies live, right now, and in the future.

      I cannot change the past. Nobody ever can.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 7:22 pm

      If abortion were made illegal tomorrow, how much jail time should a woman serve if she either hires a hitman to kill her unborn baby illegally or kills it herself by shoving a coathanger up her vagina?

    • DianaG2

      December 2, 2013 at 7:27 pm

      You sound angry and obscene.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 7:30 pm

      It’s not obscene to describe what desperate women will do.

      Tell me how much jail time a woman should serve for committing the following crime of MURDER against an unborn INNOCENT baby:

      “”The coat hanger isn’t sterile. It isn’t even clean.

      If the woman, or girl, is alone she thrusts it blindly upwards into the vagina. She’s hoping it will get into her uterus and do something. She may or may not know that to get into the uterus the coat hanger has to navigate the small opening in the cervix called the os.

      A coat hanger is technically narrow enough to get through a pregnant cervical os, but the end is sharp not tapered so it can lacerate and perforate. Getting any instrument through the cervix safely also requires visualization and knowledge of the correct amount of force.

      If she’s lucky enough to get the coat hanger through her cervix it could easily sail right through the back or side walls of the uterus. The uterine wall is soft and easily perforated with the wrong instrument or unskilled hands. If the uterus is perforated on one of the sides there is a high risk of lacerating a uterine artery, as that is where they are located. If this happens a woman who is by herself could easily bleed to death before she gets appropriate medical care. These arteries pump a lot of blood.

      The other danger with uterine perforation is the bowel. Puncturing bowel will hurt, but depending on her level of fear it might only be enough to cry out but not to ask for help. However, within the next 3 days the bowel perforation will most certainly kill her unless she gets appropriate medical care. That care will likely involve major surgery to drain abscesses, remove necrotic bowel, and possibly even a colostomy. The uterus will also be infected and may be damaged beyond repair.

      If she was lucky and got that rough end of the coat hanger in and out of her cervix without puncturing something it is unlikely she will induce an abortion immediately. In this scenario the coat hanger is really just a vector for introducing infection. In 2-3 days or so she will cramp, and if fortunate her uterus will contract and she will pass the tissue at home. However, the bacteria from septic abortions often disseminates and each hour the condition remains untreated death takes a step closer. If she gets to the hospital in time and they can empty her uterus without killing her and she doesn’t have a resistant bacteria and she isn’t in septic shock and is otherwise healthy she will survive. That’s a lot of variables.

      The coat hanger might miss the cervix altogether and puncture the top of the vagina. It could also hit the uterine arteries from this angle and likewise still devastate the bowel.

      If the coat hanger is used by someone else, they may or may not get it through the cervix. Same risks of perforation and laceration, because a skilled operator would never use a coat hanger. However, not everyone would know that and some are too desperate to care. The medical sequelae are therefore all essentially the same, with one exception. The type of people who offer coat hanger abortions may also sexually assault their victim, because really, who’s going to report them to the police?”””

      http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/anatomy-of-a-coat-hanger-abortion/

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 2, 2013 at 7:38 pm

      The word ‘vagina’ is not obscene, and you still didn’t answer.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:46 am

      Criminal law would fall under the purview of the individual states and their legislatures. But if it were up to me, I’d make abortion at least as serious as shooting someone in the heat of passion or running them down while driving drunk. In the case of the most hardened abortionists, maybe it would be more like first degree murder.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 2, 2013 at 7:26 pm

      http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/06/2418181/study-abortion-emotions/

      90% of women feel relief after an abortion

      and many of these women go on to have a child when the time is right

      You are crying tears for an embryo meanwhile, you are leaving out the fact that if that embryo had been born, the woman’s future child would not have. You are essentially saying that the child that the woman chose to have when the time was right does not deserve to live, and that the aborted embryo, in contrast, does.

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 2, 2013 at 7:37 pm

      Why would jail time be only for the hired hitman and not for the woman who hired them? Again, assuming that you believe it’s murder, and I don’t think you actually do. Which is why you keep dodging the question.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:42 am

      What is “moral value” in your thinking? How do you measure the “moral value” of a person? Would you say women have more “moral value” than men?

    • tsara

      December 4, 2013 at 3:56 am

      *sigh*
      For me, ‘person’ is the highest level of moral value. It implies (but doesn’t necessarily require, because I’m still working on my definition) moral agenthood, a complex subjective inner life, the ability to value oneself, ability to suffer (which is distinct from the ability to feel pain), and a couple other things.
      It doesn’t require humanity. Sapient aliens or computers could be persons.
      Nonpersons can also have moral value. For me, it’s all based on brains. Ravens have a theory of mind; ravens have moral value. Same with elephants, pigs, dolphins, and probably more animals.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 4:00 am

      Great. So happy for you. What’s that got to do with anything?

    • tsara

      December 4, 2013 at 4:16 am

      You asked about moral value. Quis ut Deus and I have similar opinions on that.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 4:33 am

      I see. Yes, I concur. You are correct. Both you and QuD have very subjective and sophomoric opinions about “moral value” and human personhood. That *is* true. Score one for you.

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 2, 2013 at 7:42 pm

      Why are you afraid to answer simple questions, Diana?

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:38 am

      Are you?

    • Jennifer Starr

      December 4, 2013 at 7:38 am

      Hello, Diana. My, how you’ve changed.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 4, 2013 at 3:25 pm

      PrincessJasmine4

      I think he’s hoping that if he’s inane enough he’ll get laid by one of the lovely ladies on mommyish

      It’s not his fault that he’s so much cooler online

      —————-

      I think cj is hoping he will get laid by JohnV…or maybe yippeekyayay

      who, man or woman, wouldn’t wanna fuck one of those guys?

    • CJ99

      February 14, 2014 at 4:34 pm

      Actually no, I wouldn’t get it on with any of the religious reich. Mysogonist fanatics do not excite me.

      Btw, I know this reply is late, unlike princessjasmine dianag2 or whatever account she’s using I have a life and spend most of my time not worrying about whatever alphabit soup they toss out over their keyboard.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:38 am

      These clowns aren’t here to debate sincerely and even if they were, they wouldn’t know how.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:35 am

      Are you implying that you yourself should have been aborted but weren’t? Aren’t you just a bitter unfulfilled zygote at heart?

    • Maddi Holmes

      December 5, 2013 at 9:44 am

      Actually, pregnancy IS a competition for resources between the host (mother) and the fetus. Fetuses are actually described as having a parasitic relationship with the host. The host’s immune system is actually constantly attacking the fetus, that is why we all possess genes that are expressed only during gestation that allow the zygote to attack the host’s immune system, so that the parasite will have the chance to develop before the host can kill it. The female body is always attempting to kill a fetus that is within it, that is a very well known fact.

    • yippeekayay

      December 4, 2013 at 3:34 am

      “Forced-birthers” are a figment of your feverishly death-oriented imagination.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:00 pm

      Actually, we are ALL collections of cells at all times during our lives.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:18 pm

      Yes, however, we are sentient and sapient. And we can suffer.

      Human beings are not simply clumps of DNA.

      Human beings are not genetic blueprints.

      Potentiality is not actuality.

    • DianaG2

      December 1, 2013 at 8:27 pm

      We have no way of judging degrees of suffering unless the suffering party can tell us.

      That is the foundation of laws against animal cruelty.

      No, we’re not sentient or sapient (synonyms, by the way) at all times. Nobody ever is. Do we sleep? Aside from which — the boundary that separates sentience from non-sentience? — Where is that boundary? If you put it at this age, why not just move it to another age, because after all . …

      It’s arbitrary and random.

      Neither is a fetus a clump of DNA.

      You’re just trying to justify killing a little guy or gal before she or he has had a chance to take a breath of oxygen in the world.
      You have to dehumanize him or her in order to feel okay about the killing.

    • Quis ut Deus

      December 1, 2013 at 8:36 pm

      Are you willfully ignorant or are you just that uneducated about fetal development ?
      Either way, you need to educate yourself before you take the liberty to make decisions for others based on false, or just flat out misleading statements.

      Your glib and unsupported statements clearly will not hold up to any sort of scrutiny from an unbiased and educated mind.
      I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you are just plain uneducated so I will spell out reality of fetal development and the development of sentience and awareness to you.

      A brain-dead person with a functioning heart/lungs/brain stem
      will still show electrical activity in the brain, but they won’t show the particular “brainwaves” that are characteristic of the higher
      cortical functions of cognition. So the whole EEG isn’t “flat”, just the part of the EEG profile that shows a thinking person is using that brain tissue.

      (A better description would be the more scientific exactitude of “clinical significant electrical brain activity” to avoid confusion.)

      At this point no “person” with sentience or awareness is present in the body, and it is legal to discontinue life support, and harvest organs for transplant, as without a functioning brain the body is just a collection of tissue.

      People who are diagnosed as clinically brain dead are routinely disconnected from life support and used to provide the organs for transplantations (no murder charges have ever been filled for this and none ever will be) A fetus does not have the bilaterally synchronous electroencephalographic patterns in the cortical area of the brain to be considered alive until 26-30 weeks of gestation, exactly like those who are diagnosed as clinically brain dead by physicians.

      People who are considered clinically brain-dead, have brainwaves (and sometimes even a beating heart), just not in the part of the brain that means that they are still alive. At this point doctors can start organ harvesting or turn off life support, no murder charges have ever, or will ever be been filed.

      A fetus younger then 26-30 weeks does not have all the brain structure (cortex) or the synapse, neurons etc in place to show more brain activity then a person who is clinically brain dead, as measured with the same machine (EEG)
      The heart might